OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[weberlin]

[quote=faterikcartman]

— wealthy elites who don’t buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots — the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs — generally — because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

….

Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America — unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you’ve found your guy.[/quote]

You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I’m disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

At least there is the possibility of reasonable political discourse with faterikcartman. I wish more ‘conservatives’ would speak like this.

[Anonymous]

[quote=faterikcartman]I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.

[snip][/quote]

Classic example of the pattern we see with the Tea Party.

One of their candidates demonstrates fundamental stupidity, and the “followers” try to defend the behavior using contrived arguments based on an incoherent muddle of historical references.

Perhaps there are some legal subtleties in the difference between the text of the First Amendment and the “separation” phrase.

But O’Donnell wasn’t debating these subtleties – she simply lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution.

Is the Tea Party the party of “common sense values” or the party of nitpicking technicalities and rationalization?

And the explanations for Palin quitting? – “It was the patriotic thing to do…”

The fact that so many people try to defend such ignorance is an embarrassment to our country.

[Anonymous]

[quote=faterikcartman]I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.

[snip][/quote]

Classic example of the pattern we see with the Tea Party.

One of their candidates demonstrates fundamental stupidity, and the “followers” try to defend the behavior using contrived arguments based on an incoherent muddle of historical references.

Perhaps there are some legal subtleties in the difference between the text of the First Amendment and the “separation” phrase.

But O’Donnell wasn’t debating these subtleties – she simply lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution.

Is the Tea Party the party of “common sense values” or the party of nitpicking technicalities and rationalization?

And the explanations for Palin quitting? – “It was the patriotic thing to do…”

The fact that so many people try to defend such ignorance is an embarrassment to our country.

[Anonymous]

[quote=faterikcartman]I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.

[snip][/quote]

Classic example of the pattern we see with the Tea Party.

One of their candidates demonstrates fundamental stupidity, and the “followers” try to defend the behavior using contrived arguments based on an incoherent muddle of historical references.

Perhaps there are some legal subtleties in the difference between the text of the First Amendment and the “separation” phrase.

But O’Donnell wasn’t debating these subtleties – she simply lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution.

Is the Tea Party the party of “common sense values” or the party of nitpicking technicalities and rationalization?

And the explanations for Palin quitting? – “It was the patriotic thing to do…”

The fact that so many people try to defend such ignorance is an embarrassment to our country.

[Anonymous]

[quote=faterikcartman]I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.

[snip][/quote]

Classic example of the pattern we see with the Tea Party.

One of their candidates demonstrates fundamental stupidity, and the “followers” try to defend the behavior using contrived arguments based on an incoherent muddle of historical references.

Perhaps there are some legal subtleties in the difference between the text of the First Amendment and the “separation” phrase.

But O’Donnell wasn’t debating these subtleties – she simply lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution.

Is the Tea Party the party of “common sense values” or the party of nitpicking technicalities and rationalization?

And the explanations for Palin quitting? – “It was the patriotic thing to do…”

The fact that so many people try to defend such ignorance is an embarrassment to our country.

[Anonymous]

[quote=faterikcartman]I’m not saying you’re dumb, so please don’t be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.

[snip][/quote]

Classic example of the pattern we see with the Tea Party.

One of their candidates demonstrates fundamental stupidity, and the “followers” try to defend the behavior using contrived arguments based on an incoherent muddle of historical references.

Perhaps there are some legal subtleties in the difference between the text of the First Amendment and the “separation” phrase.

But O’Donnell wasn’t debating these subtleties – she simply lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution.

Is the Tea Party the party of “common sense values” or the party of nitpicking technicalities and rationalization?

And the explanations for Palin quitting? – “It was the patriotic thing to do…”

The fact that so many people try to defend such ignorance is an embarrassment to our country.

[blahblahblah]

I recommend that we become indignant and enter postings on internet message boards voicing our concern. Clearly this is the correct course of action, and will prevent this sort of outrage from occurring in the future.

Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

Wow, I didn’t know that a single Senator could have the power to repeal constitutional amendments. I learn something new every day when reading the news!

[blahblahblah]

I recommend that we become indignant and enter postings on internet message boards voicing our concern. Clearly this is the correct course of action, and will prevent this sort of outrage from occurring in the future.

Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

Wow, I didn’t know that a single Senator could have the power to repeal constitutional amendments. I learn something new every day when reading the news!

[blahblahblah]

I recommend that we become indignant and enter postings on internet message boards voicing our concern. Clearly this is the correct course of action, and will prevent this sort of outrage from occurring in the future.

Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

Wow, I didn’t know that a single Senator could have the power to repeal constitutional amendments. I learn something new every day when reading the news!

[blahblahblah]

I recommend that we become indignant and enter postings on internet message boards voicing our concern. Clearly this is the correct course of action, and will prevent this sort of outrage from occurring in the future.

Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

Wow, I didn’t know that a single Senator could have the power to repeal constitutional amendments. I learn something new every day when reading the news!

[blahblahblah]

I recommend that we become indignant and enter postings on internet message boards voicing our concern. Clearly this is the correct course of action, and will prevent this sort of outrage from occurring in the future.

Later in Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

Wow, I didn’t know that a single Senator could have the power to repeal constitutional amendments. I learn something new every day when reading the news!

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).[/quote]
No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like ‘consensus’.. it makes it easy to decide which way ‘the wind blows’. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the ‘last fact standing’. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth’s surface is 60% water!

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).[/quote]
No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like ‘consensus’.. it makes it easy to decide which way ‘the wind blows’. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the ‘last fact standing’. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth’s surface is 60% water!

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).[/quote]
No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like ‘consensus’.. it makes it easy to decide which way ‘the wind blows’. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the ‘last fact standing’. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth’s surface is 60% water!

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).[/quote]
No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like ‘consensus’.. it makes it easy to decide which way ‘the wind blows’. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the ‘last fact standing’. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth’s surface is 60% water!

[Author]

Posts