Christine O'Donnell: Latest whipping post for the Left

[VaYank5150]

Look, I know what this is. Liberals are pissed off they're about to lose some seats and effectively end the runaway spending of the past eighteen months, so they're trying to fight dirty.

Why are they so consumed with Christine O'Donnell? Because she said she dabbled in witchcraft when she was younger? SO WHAT? Obama dabbled in pot and cocaine when he was younger and you idiots voted him into office. Why does that make O'Donnell a dealbreaker?

You guys just need another George Bush. They have been itching for one since November 2008. Anybody who's an interesting and compelling figure on the Right has to become the boogeyman all so Obama looks better by comparison. It's Sarah Palin, it's O'Donnell, it was Scott Brown for a minute; if Pawlenty and Romney actually run, it'll be them. But the country is tired of this style of gotcha politics. They see what the Democrats do when they have the White House and Congress: not much, other than spend like crazy and enact more entitlement programs in a recession. I don't care how weird O'Donnell is supposed to be, she hasn't been The Problem these past two years. The Democrats have. DEAL WITH IT.

Hey, you Tea Baggers lob these crazies up and we simply beat the shit out of them with their own words. Why is that a problem for you, again?

 

[Rinata]

The liberal media have certainly got their walking orders and many people have made up their minds pretty quick around here.

Me , I haven't decided.. just scratching the surface, it's a choice between a career rubber stamp for Obama/Democrats and an all American looking Gal, that says she is guided by the constitution.

I say test her metal but check your misogyny level...and expect the same from the media.

So you might vote for her because she's pretty?

Misogyny? I've voted for plenty of women, but only because they were smart, not because they were pretty.



She says she's guided by the Constitution? She also wants a theocracy, which is expressly prohibitted by the Constitution.

But she is pretty!

(So you might vote for her because she's pretty?)

It's a fact she has the all American Gal look but guided by the constitution sounds more interesting..

(Are you watching FOX News? You know they gave one million dollars to the Repubs and nothing to the Dems don't you? Oh so very "fair and balanced". You know that all the media is owned by giant corporations, don't you?)

So far.. their free to do that... doesn't bother me. ( Meet you in the Media Forum sometime)

(She says she's guided by the Constitution? She also wants a theocracy, which is expressly prohibitted by the Constitution.)

Theocracy...She does.. ? you got proof..?.. Do you think she can do that all by herself or you're kinda over-reacting?

I like you, Lumpy. You think things over.

 

[Charles_Main]

Does she deserve what she is getting?
That is the only question that matters.

Standing up for her for partisan reasons is one reason we are in such a mess.

Attacking her as a witch for having a boyfriend 3 decades ago that was one is something she deserves?

Please

so let me get this straight. Her opponent once wrote he saw himself as a bearded Marxists. But that is off limits.

But the fact that she played around with a Ouija Board, and had a Witch Boyfriend when she was a teenager is fair game.

Ok I see how it works now.

 

[Rinata]

Well, that's very kind of you, Lumpy. I think O'Donnell has far, far, far too much baggage to even get elected dog catcher but not because she's a chick. A person's gender seems mostly irrelevant these days, apart from the "pretty woman" phenom.

I dun know what to tell ya about "career politicans", Lumpy. Mebbe in a local government position it'd be workable to run a candidate from business or education or whatnot, but at the national level, it's very very very hard to get anyone elected without name recognition and a track record of votes. The few who do -- Jessie Ventura, Al Franken and Arnold Schwartenegger all come to mind -- were "known" from entertainment, not a well I'd want to dip into all that often.

Do you really think you could get someone elected to the US Senate that was a "regular guy" from an average working class background with zero experience in politics? I think it'd be nice, but it's damned unlikely. And I fail to see why someone with O'Donnell's resume should be seen as such anyway. How many "regular guys" spent a year appearing on Bill Maher's show as a guest?

Makes sense, Lumpy.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well, that's very kind of you, Lumpy. I think O'Donnell has far, far, far too much baggage to even get elected dog catcher but not because she's a chick. A person's gender seems mostly irrelevant these days, apart from the "pretty woman" phenom.

I dun know what to tell ya about "career politicans", Lumpy. Mebbe in a local government position it'd be workable to run a candidate from business or education or whatnot, but at the national level, it's very very very hard to get anyone elected without name recognition and a track record of votes. The few who do -- Jessie Ventura, Al Franken and Arnold Schwartenegger all come to mind -- were "known" from entertainment, not a well I'd want to dip into all that often.

Do you really think you could get someone elected to the US Senate that was a "regular guy" from an average working class background with zero experience in politics? I think it'd be nice, but it's damned unlikely. And I fail to see why someone with O'Donnell's resume should be seen as such anyway. How many "regular guys" spent a year appearing on Bill Maher's show as a guest?

(Do you really think you could get someone elected to the US Senate that was a "regular guy" from an average working class background with zero experience in politics?)

Why the Hell not?... Wasn't that the original dream and intent. How much does it take, as it is now, to vote party lines, not read the legislation and not live up to campaign promises or what the American people want and need.. a representative government.

If there's a possibility of changing the status quo of Washington .. I'm for it.

At first blush , it doesn't look so good for her but if they test her metal fairly and she survives the onslot, I'm willing to hold judgment and give the Gal a chance at least. You have to consider the alternative..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Look, I know what this is. Liberals are pissed off they're about to lose some seats and effectively end the runaway spending of the past eighteen months, so they're trying to fight dirty.

Why are they so consumed with Christine O'Donnell? Because she said she dabbled in witchcraft when she was younger? SO WHAT? Obama dabbled in pot and cocaine when he was younger and you idiots voted him into office. Why does that make O'Donnell a dealbreaker?

You guys just need another George Bush. They have been itching for one since November 2008. Anybody who's an interesting and compelling figure on the Right has to become the boogeyman all so Obama looks better by comparison. It's Sarah Palin, it's O'Donnell, it was Scott Brown for a minute; if Pawlenty and Romney actually run, it'll be them. But the country is tired of this style of gotcha politics. They see what the Democrats do when they have the White House and Congress: not much, other than spend like crazy and enact more entitlement programs in a recession. I don't care how weird O'Donnell is supposed to be, she hasn't been The Problem these past two years. The Democrats have. DEAL WITH IT.

It's not just people on the left attacking O'Donnell. Plenty on the right have done the same and all of the same reason. She's a piss poor candidate who can't keep her own affairs in order, yet somehow thinks she is qualified to help run the country.

Try putting your partisanship aside and look at it objectively.

 

[Madeline]

Well, Lumpy I'm not in Delaware but I don't think I'd vote "moonbat" no matter how pissed I was at Reid.

As for career politicians, in fairness Lumpy, do you really think being a US Senator could ever be a part-time job?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well, Lumpy I'm not in Delaware but I don't think I'd vote "moonbat" no matter how pissed I was at Reid.

As for career politicians, in fairness Lumpy, do you really think being a US Senator could ever be a part-time job?

Well.. they are in session less than 1/3rd of the year and they do have full time staffs.

Sooo. what's so good about Chris Coons?

 

[007]

Hey, you Tea Baggers lob these crazies up and we simply beat the shit out of them with their own words. Why is that a problem for you, again?

Not only are you still talking about a big, sagging, sweaty ball sack full of testicles being dropped in your mouth... man, you must really like that, but you prove that you piss dumb liberal slack jaws ain't got a thing to say about your record. All you can do is talk trash, just like you're doing. Oh yeah, stay away from the issues and your track record, 'cause that's in the toilet. Keep talking about ball sacks in your mouth and trash talk conservatives. That's fantastic. I'm sure the American electorate is going vote for liberals doing that. Absolutely...

What a fucking moron.

 

[Jarhead]

Hey, you Tea Baggers lob these crazies up and we simply beat the shit out of them with their own words. Why is that a problem for you, again?

Not only are you still talking about a big, sagging, sweaty ball sack full of testicles being dropped in your mouth... man, you must really like that, but you prove that you piss dumb liberal slack jaws ain't got a thing to say about your record. All you can do is talk trash, just like you're doing. Oh yeah, stay away from the issues and your track record, 'cause that's in the toilet. Keep talking about ball sacks in your mouth and trash talk conservatives. That's fantastic. I'm sure the American electorate is going vote for liberals doing that. Absolutely...

What a fucking moron.

It is easy to talk trash of just about anyone if you go back to their actions as children, teenagers and college students.

But why is it when we talk about things like Van Jones of ten years ago, the left says "that was ten years ago; people change"

Or my favorite..Bill Ayers...

"That was back in the 70's. He is now an educator; a highly respected man"

As for me? I am a highoy regarded man in my community and my industry. But as a 17 year old, I drove drunk on occassion. As a 16 year old I used to start fights with the smaller kids in my school. As an 18 year old, I skinny dipped in my neighbors pool...and peed in it.

Yep...the left is getting quite desparate.

 

[Full-Auto]

Does she deserve what she is getting?
That is the only question that matters.

Standing up for her for partisan reasons is one reason we are in such a mess.

Attacking her as a witch for having a boyfriend 3 decades ago that was one is something she deserves?

Please

so let me get this straight. Her opponent once wrote he saw himself as a bearded Marxists. But that is off limits.

But the fact that she played around with a Ouija Board, and had a Witch Boyfriend when she was a teenager is fair game.

Ok I see how it works now.

When havnt democrats been the party of personal destruction?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Does she deserve what she is getting?
That is the only question that matters.

Standing up for her for partisan reasons is one reason we are in such a mess.

Attacking her as a witch for having a boyfriend 3 decades ago that was one is something she deserves?

Please

so let me get this straight. Her opponent once wrote he saw himself as a bearded Marxists. But that is off limits.

But the fact that she played around with a Ouija Board, and had a Witch Boyfriend when she was a teenager is fair game.

Ok I see how it works now.

Who has said that Coons' "bearded marxist" comment is "off limits"?

I guess the posters on this board didn't get the message, because I've seen a shitload of threads on that single line from a college paper.

Nothing is "off limits" in politics.

 

[Jarhead]

Does she deserve what she is getting?
That is the only question that matters.

Standing up for her for partisan reasons is one reason we are in such a mess.

Attacking her as a witch for having a boyfriend 3 decades ago that was one is something she deserves?

Please

so let me get this straight. Her opponent once wrote he saw himself as a bearded Marxists. But that is off limits.

But the fact that she played around with a Ouija Board, and had a Witch Boyfriend when she was a teenager is fair game.

Ok I see how it works now.

Who has said that Coons' "bearded marxist" comment is "off limits"?

I guess the posters on this board didn't get the message, because I've seen a shitload of threads on that single line from a college paper.

Nothing is "off limits" in politics.

Maybe that is the problem.

 

[Coyote]

Lumpy, admit it. O'Donnell is a preposterous candidate. Of course she gets air time...she's tailor made for a 15 minute news cycle. She knocked over a solid Republican candidate so now Delaware has two crappy choices on election day. I can understand why conservatives are mad, can't you?

I think I've got whole Christine O'Donnell thing figured out. A couple of articles mentioned she dabbled in witchcraft (big deal) - people made fun of it. The rightwing - in typical desperation, have taken it, run it up the flagpole, decorated it with feathers and sequins and circles and arrows pointing at the horrible Democrats and, in short - making a circus production of a non-event all for one purpose: to draw attention away from her very REAL short comings.

Her plus': ....she SEZ.....(insert teaparty talking points)

Her record:....she talks

Her negatives: some highly questionable finances, liens for unpaid taxes, student loans that didn't appear to have been used for schooling....and some pretty damning statements through out her "career".

So...why are we focusing on "witchcraft"? Because it's a strawman and doesn't really matter.

 

[Jarhead]

Lumpy, admit it. O'Donnell is a preposterous candidate. Of course she gets air time...she's tailor made for a 15 minute news cycle. She knocked over a solid Republican candidate so now Delaware has two crappy choices on election day. I can understand why conservatives are mad, can't you?

I think I've got whole Christine O'Donnell thing figured out. A couple of articles mentioned she dabbled in witchcraft (big deal) - people made fun of it. The rightwing - in typical desperation, have taken it, run it up the flagpole, decorated it with feathers and sequins and circles and arrows pointing at the horrible Democrats and, in short - making a circus production of a non-event all for one purpose: to draw attention away from her very REAL short comings.

Her plus': ....she SEZ.....(insert teaparty talking points)

Her record:....she talks

Her negatives: some highly questionable finances, liens for unpaid taxes, student loans that didn't appear to have been used for schooling....and some pretty damning statements through out her "career".

So...why are we focusing on "witchcraft"? Because it's a strawman and doesn't really matter.

Hmmmm...interesting theory. May be correct.
But then why would some of the Republican diehards such as Rove bring forth her shortcomings?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Attacking her as a witch for having a boyfriend 3 decades ago that was one is something she deserves?

Please

so let me get this straight. Her opponent once wrote he saw himself as a bearded Marxists. But that is off limits.

But the fact that she played around with a Ouija Board, and had a Witch Boyfriend when she was a teenager is fair game.

Ok I see how it works now.

Who has said that Coons' "bearded marxist" comment is "off limits"?

I guess the posters on this board didn't get the message, because I've seen a shitload of threads on that single line from a college paper.

Nothing is "off limits" in politics.

Maybe that is the problem.

Free speech has plenty of problems, but less problems than censorship does.

 

[Jarhead]

Who has said that Coons' "bearded marxist" comment is "off limits"?

I guess the posters on this board didn't get the message, because I've seen a shitload of threads on that single line from a college paper.

Nothing is "off limits" in politics.

Maybe that is the problem.

Free speech has plenty of problems, but less problems than censorship does.

Free speech is not the problem.
Gullibility is.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Look, I know what this is. Liberals are pissed off they're about to lose some seats and effectively end the runaway spending of the past eighteen months, so they're trying to fight dirty.

Why are they so consumed with Christine O'Donnell? Because she said she dabbled in witchcraft when she was younger? SO WHAT? Obama dabbled in pot and cocaine when he was younger and you idiots voted him into office. Why does that make O'Donnell a dealbreaker?

You guys just need another George Bush. They have been itching for one since November 2008. Anybody who's an interesting and compelling figure on the Right has to become the boogeyman all so Obama looks better by comparison. It's Sarah Palin, it's O'Donnell, it was Scott Brown for a minute; if Pawlenty and Romney actually run, it'll be them. But the country is tired of this style of gotcha politics. They see what the Democrats do when they have the White House and Congress: not much, other than spend like crazy and enact more entitlement programs in a recession. I don't care how weird O'Donnell is supposed to be, she hasn't been The Problem these past two years. The Democrats have. DEAL WITH IT.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh.....you mean "whipping-boy"....which really wouldn't be all that much-more an accurate-analogy.

(Whipping-post????

)​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Maybe that is the problem.

Free speech has plenty of problems, but less problems than censorship does.

Free speech is not the problem.
Gullibility is.

Well, if you know a solution to that, I'm all ears.

 

[Coyote]

Lumpy, admit it. O'Donnell is a preposterous candidate. Of course she gets air time...she's tailor made for a 15 minute news cycle. She knocked over a solid Republican candidate so now Delaware has two crappy choices on election day. I can understand why conservatives are mad, can't you?

I think I've got whole Christine O'Donnell thing figured out. A couple of articles mentioned she dabbled in witchcraft (big deal) - people made fun of it. The rightwing - in typical desperation, have taken it, run it up the flagpole, decorated it with feathers and sequins and circles and arrows pointing at the horrible Democrats and, in short - making a circus production of a non-event all for one purpose: to draw attention away from her very REAL short comings.

Her plus': ....she SEZ.....(insert teaparty talking points)

Her record:....she talks

Her negatives: some highly questionable finances, liens for unpaid taxes, student loans that didn't appear to have been used for schooling....and some pretty damning statements through out her "career".

So...why are we focusing on "witchcraft"? Because it's a strawman and doesn't really matter.

Hmmmm...interesting theory. May be correct.
But then why would some of the Republican diehards such as Rove bring forth her shortcomings?

Hasn't he tried to backtrack?