http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

dude says he had a one-night stand with Christine Odonnell...but didn't PIIHV...hmm...I'm saying this has some convenient timing.

Yeah, sniffs of BS, especially the virgin thing. Still a "cool story bro" moment. And it lightens up things on here lol.

But, I wish she would just go away, and I seriously hope she does go away after she loses by 25+ points.

I don't necessarily agree with everything Christine O'Donnell says or stands for, but I'm wondering what heinous crime did that woman commit to deserve the nastiness and rabid foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from liberals in this country? I heard parts of her debate with Chris Coons (yes he is a Marxist) and I thought she came off well and had good things to say. (BTW, Wolf Blitzer is a complete buffoon). http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/christine-odonnell-chris-coons-debate.html

Conservative blog dealing with ODonnell:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/28/the-character-assassination-of

The particular blog, Gawker, has always made it clear that there is nothing they won't publish, so it's hard to get mad at them for publishing this guy's shameful and slimy betrayal of O'Donnell. And it wouldn't even be so bad if the story centered on any one of the thousands of celebrities for whom sleazy, intrusive journalism is the name of the game, who trade on notoriety, and whose lifestyles naturally captivate people with regular lives and jobs.

Instead, what bothers me is the huge audience of political watchers and voters who will likely reward Gawker by reading the post with glee and passing it along. We are a few days away from an enormously consequential election. Christine O'Donnell is one doomed candidate among thousands of other candidates, and a fringe participant in an event that will shape peoples' lives in real ways. The amount of educated, politically knowledgeable people who find titillation in the eccentricities of harmless candidate who happens to have an unusual background and a lack of political polish is a sad commentary on the nearly absolute debasement of American discourse.

Amen. That last paragraph sums up the whole treatment of Christine O'Donnell for me.

Adding to that . . .

the fact that she (and Sarah Palin for that matter) elicits that response from liberals makes me think she's got her head on straight and would make a decent candidate.

Wow this looks like something I've seen before...

A women who is totally un-prepared for the office she is running for. Stories come out that show how incompetent she is. She continues to look look a baffon,and then the conservatives come out and say "Liberals hate her because she's so great and if you don't think so,you're a sexist"

Give it a break

Ty Webb;536348 wrote:Wow this looks like something I've seen before...

A women who is totally un-prepared for the office she is running for. Stories come out that show how incompetent she is. She continues to look look a baffon,and then the conservatives come out and say "Liberals hate her because she's so great and if you don't think so,you're a sexist"

Give it a break

10:17 pm.

jhay78;536335 wrote:I don't necessarily agree with everything Christine O'Donnell says or stands for, but I'm wondering what heinous crime did that woman commit to deserve the nastiness and rabid foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from liberals in this country? I heard parts of her debate with Chris Coons (yes he is a Marxist) and I thought she came off well and had good things to say. (BTW, Wolf Blitzer is a complete buffoon). http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/christine-odonnell-chris-coons-debate.html

Conservative blog dealing with ODonnell:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/28/the-character-assassination-of



Amen. That last paragraph sums up the whole treatment of Christine O'Donnell for me.

Agreed on all the attention liberals give her. It is annoying as hell the amount of press she gets for a candidate that is down 20 points.
But, I disagree with you that she came off well. She is simply put, an idiot. She has no concept of indepth policy issues, or anything beyond the superficial boiler plate statements and arguments. When you get past all the typical political jargon crap and get to the meat of what she would offer in the Senate, she falls away and provides no substance or ideas that are anywhere near practical.

I like the idea of an outsider, or someone off the beaten path to take a seat in the Senate (like Rand Paul, I really support him), but O'Donnell has no real deep ideas.

The marxist and his hit-team must still be pretty nervous to fly this one out. Pretty sad.

More ...................... change we can believe in .......... from the radical left.

ptown_trojans_1;536296 wrote: and I seriously hope she does go away after she loses by 25+ points.

dream on..........

QuakerOats;536446 wrote:dream on..........

Sure, but honestly, she is just awful and brings nothing, I mean nothing to solving the difficult, complex problems our country faces.
I've heard nothing but the typical boilerplate arguments from her.

And nearly every poll has her down 15-20 points.

What exactly does she offer? Why is it that every time there is a conservative candidate who appears to be lacking in original ideas, the ability to convey policy ideas, and says things that are crazy and then gets called out or questioned on those points it's somehow the evil liberals fault for asking questions?

"She is simply put, an idiot. "|

Welcome to the party, Obama and Biden aren't idiots? They've put out our country in an unsustainable debt burden, that we aren't getting out of anytime soon.

Enjoy your student loans, that will be your life for the next 30 years.

Manhattan Buckeye;536494 wrote:"She is simply put, an idiot. "|

Welcome to the party, Obama and Biden aren't idiots? They've put out our country in an unsustainable debt burden, that we aren't getting out of anytime soon.

Enjoy your student loans, that will be your life for the next 30 years.

Different sort of idiocy haha. But, at least they had language beyond the shallow buzz words.
But, it was not just Obama and Bide that put us into debt, it has been the last 20 years.
Those loans were high during the Bush years too.

Point, both parties are filled with idiots and policies that have screwed us the past 20 years. Blaming one over the other makes no sense as they one in the same. O'Donnell does not bring anything to the table that demonstrates she can bring us back from the abyss.


Broader point, and I was having this discussion with some Republican friends of mine who are working in Congress and in the government and are just as frustrated as I am. They see the tea party as great in concept, but short on policy. They also hope that new R members bring new pragmatic ideas and do not latch onto talking points or follow the guidance of the right wing media.

They expressed a hope to the classic old school conservative Republican ideas and not whatever we have today. Just their point of view.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/gawker/trail-anonymous-christine-odonnells-sex-free-pal

I would hit it for the record

"They see the tea party as great in concept, but short on policy."

Then they are missing the point. The Tea Party is not about fancy policy-making; it is about small government and de-funding government... something badly needed in a hurry.

QuakerOats;536628 wrote:"They see the tea party as great in concept, but short on policy."

Then they are missing the point. The Tea Party is not about fancy policy-making; it is about small government and de-funding government... something badly needed in a hurry.

Agreed. But, how do you do it...?
I and my Republican friends think the Tea Party is a great start. It just now needs to focus on how to implement this pretty good concept.

I want smaller, more efficient government that puts more emphasis on the private sector too. But, how are we going to do that?

QuakerOats;536628 wrote:"They see the tea party as great in concept, but short on policy."

Then they are missing the point. The Tea Party is not about fancy policy-making; it is about small government and de-funding government... something badly needed in a hurry.

As a country, we've been duped that only the smartest, ivy-league educated elites are anywhere near capable of leading this nation in the Congress and Presidency. If you are a hayseed from Kentucky or a Joyless Behar "bitch that will rot in hell" candidate from Nevada, then you are automatically rejected as being able to serve in Washington. We've been taught that only those that "know it all" are priviledged enough to be able to understand everything under the sun. This was never the intent of the founders, yet we have evolved into this mindset. Obama is supposed to be the smartest politician of all time, yet all of his academic learning has not been combined with common sense real world experience. His lack of experience and ability to act at the executive level are hurting this country to the core.

Ok, so Angle is elected, she gets to the Senate and pledges to cut the debt and cut federal spending.
Has she said how she is going to do it?
How will O'Donnell?

Where, how and on what scale, are they going to cut things?

What is their option for SS? Privatize, semi-privatize, raising the retirement age?
How would they work with other Senators to accomplish the goals?

How would she repeal the healthcare bill, or if repealing was not possible, what would she do to add or remove portions?
What about defense, how would she act there?

It's one thing for Angle and O'Donnell to say smaller government, it is another to tell and explain how they would do it in a practical and pragmatic way. It is not like I don;t like outsiders, it is just I want to know specifics and how they will run the government since they are outsiders and new.

ptown_trojans_1;536675 wrote: I want smaller, more efficient government that puts more emphasis on the private sector too. But, how are we going to do that?

Step 1 is Tuesday --- fire everyone in congress who has never held a real job; never met a payroll, never dealt with the absolutely bizarre and onerous tax and regulatory climate in the private sector, and/or who thinks government has the answers or is the answer.

That will lead to Step 2.

tbc

QuakerOats;536700 wrote:Step 1 is Tuesday --- fire everyone in congress who has never held a real job; never met a payroll, never dealt with the absolutely bizarre and onerous tax and regulatory climate in the private sector, and/or who thinks government has the answers or is the answer.

That will lead to Step 2.

tbc

And step 2 is.......


Come on, R's nailed Obama for this exact same thing. It is the trust us, our way is better argument. Is this really that different than Pelosi saying once the bill is passed, they will like it?
Come on. I know simple arguments, but this is an important time and we need to really examine analytically each candidate and what they bring.

ptown_trojans_1;536433 wrote:Agreed on all the attention liberals give her. It is annoying as hell the amount of press she gets for a candidate that is down 20 points.
But, I disagree with you that she came off well. She is simply put, an idiot. She has no concept of indepth policy issues, or anything beyond the superficial boiler plate statements and arguments. When you get past all the typical political jargon crap and get to the meat of what she would offer in the Senate, she falls away and provides no substance or ideas that are anywhere near practical.

I like the idea of an outsider, or someone off the beaten path to take a seat in the Senate (like Rand Paul, I really support him), but O'Donnell has no real deep ideas.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or an Ivy League scholar with "deep ideas" to see that we've strayed so far from our Constitution and founding principles it's not even funny. IMO we could use a few more "idiots" who strive for the ideals of a limited federal government and more self-government exercised by free people. If that sound too idealistic or too cliche, then so be it. O'Donnell doesn't need to reinvent the wheel here, nor would she be a monarch exercising sole authority; she would be 1/100th of one body of a bicameral legislature, with two other branches of federal government balancing things out.

QuakerOats;536628 wrote:"They see the tea party as great in concept, but short on policy."

Then they are missing the point. The Tea Party is not about fancy policy-making; it is about small government and de-funding government... something badly needed in a hurry.

+1. Liberals didn't seem to mind a severe shortage of intellectual & logical policy gems in 2008; they were perfectly content to hide behind the banner of rabid shouts of "Hope and Change!" and "Yes We Can!". When you're a conservative like Christine O'Donnell, you have to freaking write an encyclopedia on how to fix everything or you're an idiot.

ptown - the coming decisions are going to be tough. The coming Congress will have to tackle very difficult choices. Obama's debt commission is reporting in a month and the ideas they will espouse will cause pain amongst a whole swath of groups and people. We need leaders to make these calls. We need stand-up people that won't pass the buck. We need toughness. I keep going back to Chris Christie...what he's doing is awesome because he sees the depths of despair of his state and he is doing something about it. This includes stepping on toes that haven't been stepped on in a longggg time...teacher's unions, corrupt politicians, unions like AFSCME and SEIU, and lawyers. This is real leadership to make the important decisions and this is exactly what is needed in DC sooner rather than later.

In the past few years, the discussion is not about whether or not to throw money at problems, but how much. This is the Dem vs. Dem Lite discussion. Those days are behind us. We must find things to cut (like $420,000,000 to NPR and public broadcasting) that are not necessary and trim things that are. If we don't? The dollar is in free-fall and will join the Zimbabwe billion dollar bill as the most worthless instruments on the planet. Commodity prices are rising and core inflation is on a hair trigger, depending on what the Fed does with purchasing even more of our debt. I agree we need specifics and the debt commission will provide the basis for discussion. We better listen to them and solve our problems now...because the future of our country depends on it.

Haha. "Fancy policy-making"?

No, you don't have to write an encyclopedia. But you should be able to explain what and how you're going to do something as well as articulate your views on subjects. It isn't just O'Donnell that is bad at this either. Douchers on both sides of the aisle do this. My favorite is when looking at the websites of candidates they have 10 step checklists or something to explain what they're going to do and they look like:

"Create Jobs
Lower Taxes
Promote Business"

That literally told me nothing, great job candidate!

BG: Cut things like the $50 billion we spend on the drug war that isn't working or helping anyone?
Or the hundreds of billions we're spending in Iraq and Afghanistan each year?
Or the $3 billion in military aid to Israel and the added $3 billion in loan guarantees?
Or if we're going to cut everything not necessary how about the death penalty? It costs something like $100 million a year over what the alternatives are (per state if I remember).

If we're going to stop the bleeding perhaps we should focus on the arterial bleeds first, not the scratches. This would include revamping the health care bill and focusing on finding real solutions to Medicaid and Medicare as well as Social Security.

QuakerOats;536628 wrote:Then they are missing the point. The Tea Party is not about fancy policy-making; it is about small government and de-funding government... something badly needed in a hurry.

Exactly. The Tea Party is a grass roots political movement. One that is based on smaller leaner government (mostly at the federal level) and fiscally sound government spending (mostly limited to those enumerated in the constitution). It is a philosophical and ideological movement.

It is not a political party with set governing policies. I think many get off track because of the word "party". The movement is named after the Boston Tea Party. Where a group of citizens that were fed up with their grievances being ignored, they got pissed and went out and raised a little hell against the government in an attempt to influence the political powers of the day in regards to the latest government action. The Tea Act. The Boston Tea Party took the movement against the government one notch above words to the level of destroying property.

Instead of listening to the peoples concerns. Government shoveled four more acts, all five known as the coercive acts, down their throats. We know were that led us. Many of the coercive acts were directly referred to in the declaration of independence.