O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment - Yahoo! News
Don't worry Christine the nutcases will still support you.:houra
Don't worry Christine the nutcases will still support you.:houra
O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
- Thread starter tank
- Start date
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
tank one again proves the 'progressive' party hack he is.
Next thing he'll be telling us that Christine's children aren't her own or that she'll end up in jail on ethics charges. :doh1
tank one again proves the 'progressive' party hack he is.
Next thing he'll be telling us that Christine's children aren't her own or that she'll end up in jail on ethics charges. :doh1
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
See here is nutcase number 1 already to defend her.I thought you would be against her Joe since she is against masturbation which you like so much.
I will let Charles explain it to you !!
O'Donnell and kamikaze conservatism
You don't stop the Obama administration agenda by nominating a Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and turning a Senate seat from safe Republican to safe Democratic. - chicagotribune.com
P.S..She doesn't have any kids.
See here is nutcase number 1 already to defend her.I thought you would be against her Joe since she is against masturbation which you like so much.
I will let Charles explain it to you !!
O'Donnell and kamikaze conservatism
You don't stop the Obama administration agenda by nominating a Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and turning a Senate seat from safe Republican to safe Democratic. - chicagotribune.com
P.S..She doesn't have any kids.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
So predictable.
A true uncompromising constitutional conservative is about to be swept into power and already the kooky stories about witchcraft, masturbation and dinosaurs are circulating on the Nothingpost and other far left Marxist propaganda mills. Even more predictable: tank swallows harder and deeper than Monica when she...uh, never mind.
Anyhoo, progressives are petrified, rightly so.
The Tea Party is threatening to take a wrecking ball to their corrupt, leviathan state.
Except more of these kooky headlines as the 'progressive' dream of micromanaging our lives slips further and further into the crapper.
So predictable.
A true uncompromising constitutional conservative is about to be swept into power and already the kooky stories about witchcraft, masturbation and dinosaurs are circulating on the Nothingpost and other far left Marxist propaganda mills. Even more predictable: tank swallows harder and deeper than Monica when she...uh, never mind.
Anyhoo, progressives are petrified, rightly so.
The Tea Party is threatening to take a wrecking ball to their corrupt, leviathan state.
Except more of these kooky headlines as the 'progressive' dream of micromanaging our lives slips further and further into the crapper.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="800"><tbody><tr><td align="left">
Return to the Article</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
September 18, 2010
Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Era
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Christine O'Donnell is a game-changer in the first regularly scheduled federal elections of the Tea Party era in more ways than one.
The evidence? Read the reactions of three people from various parts of the political-media establishment: Peggy Noonan ("Why It's Time for the Tea Party"), Chris Matthews ("Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O'Donnell Wins in November") and A.B. Stoddard of The Hill ("Tea Party's Already Won").
"Experts" said Ms. O'Donnell couldn't win in the Delaware Republican primary, and many now say she can't win the general election. They have hoped that about all the Tea Party era candidates, but the vicious attacks on O'Donnell -- especially those coming from establishment Republicans -- demonstrate that the "smartest people in the room" have failed to grasp what the Tea Party knows is at stake.
The O'Donnell win is like my favorite line from the movie The Fugitive. U.S. Marshall Tommy Lee Jones has fugitive Harrison Ford cornered. Ford says, "I didn't kill my wife." Jones replies, "I don't care."
His job wasn't to sort that out on the spot. His job was to bring in the fugitive. Sometimes justice gets sorted out later.
The Tea Party has an urgent mission. Justice will be sorted out. Noonan, Matthews, and Stoddard are at least beginning to grasp what is happening. Others -- professional political consultants, the political media, the political class, indeed, all who have a vested interest in big government -- are in denial.
Karl Rove defended his self-ruinous election eve attack of O'Donnell on Fox News' Hannity show by claiming he's not a cheerleader for every Republican candidate.
Funny, prior to Tuesday night, that's exactly what he was. He was also the cheerleader for policies that ended the Republican congressional majority and is as responsible as anyone for bringing about that "Hope and Change" thing. If he was the "Architect," the people rejected his blueprint.
The media's foremost elitist "common man," Bill O'Reilly, defended his friend and Fox News colleague Rove: he opened his show Thursday by reiterating Rove's "concerns" that O'Donnell isn't what they think the ideal candidate should be.
O'Reilly was more genteel and tepid in his description of O'Donnell's opponent in the general election, a once-self-described Marxist, referring to him as perhaps a "socialist." O'Reilly said the Delaware general election pits extreme ideology against extreme ideology.
Bill, let me break it to you. One ideology is against freedom and is a proven failure.
In this first federal election of the Tea Party era, we won't get all George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons. We'll take a few Patrick Henrys, Nathan Hales, James Otises, and others whose names won't make the history books. The Washingtons and Jeffersons may come. This is America. We always rise to the challenge. But we ain't waiting.
The O'Donnell win is the people telling the establishment, "'We don't care.' You are failed stewards of freedom and our great national treasure, and you have messed up things so badly that you need to be replaced -- now -- before it's too late."
Now, in every election, there are disappointments on all sides. However, any losses by Tea Party-backed candidates, but especially by O'Donnell, will come with highly charged "I-told-you-so" moments.
On the other hand, wins by all Tea Party candidates -- and especially O'Donnell -- would come with hand-wringing, excuses, and a litany of "professional" reasons designed only to further the false narrative about the Tea Party.
Fox News has been a great addition to the national news media, but it tends to have an establishment Republican slant. I wish there were a non-establishment, constitutional, conservative competitor network to capture the rest of the huge American center-right market (hint, hint). We'd perhaps get a better post-election picture in the Tea Party era.
The point is, it's no longer establishment Republicans vying against Democrats. Thursday I got a mass e-mail from National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Pete Sessions with the subject line, "What's Scarier: 9.6% Unemployment? Or John Boehner?"
The purpose was to mock Democrats' recent attempts to demonize Boehner, who they assuredly now believe will be Speaker in the face of devastating losses in November.
To Tea Partiers who have no allegiance to incumbents, however, it sends the wrong message. It's like asking them: "Who's worse? Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, or the failed Karl Rove Republican establishment?"
In that regard, Sessions' e-mail is like the famous Jack Benny skit in which a thief approaches him and demands, "Your money or your life." Benny pauses. The thief then says, "Well, what is it?" Benny replies, "I'm thinking; I'm thinking."
There isn't a Tea Partier who doesn't understand the danger of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda. Any Republican taking any title for granted, however, is a problem. Now, you've got to earn it. With this first federal election of the Tea Party era, the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils.
Christine O'Donnell is that lesson. At Friday's Values Voter Summit in Washington, she said, "They don't get it. We're not trying to take back our country. We are our country." That reminded me of another outsider derided by the establishment: Ronald Reagan.
With Democrats on the run in so many races, their resources are stretched. Democrats will need to rely on bitter Republicans to fend off O'Donnell's run in Delaware. Conservatives mustn't allow the bitter Republicans to destroy the chance to take the Senate by backing down from, or making excuses for, their establishment "friends."
The 2010 elections will show who's on our side. It's up to the people who care too much about America to no longer care what the establishment thinks of them.
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="800"><tbody><tr><td align="left">
Return to the Article</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
September 18, 2010
Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Era
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Christine O'Donnell is a game-changer in the first regularly scheduled federal elections of the Tea Party era in more ways than one.
The evidence? Read the reactions of three people from various parts of the political-media establishment: Peggy Noonan ("Why It's Time for the Tea Party"), Chris Matthews ("Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O'Donnell Wins in November") and A.B. Stoddard of The Hill ("Tea Party's Already Won").
"Experts" said Ms. O'Donnell couldn't win in the Delaware Republican primary, and many now say she can't win the general election. They have hoped that about all the Tea Party era candidates, but the vicious attacks on O'Donnell -- especially those coming from establishment Republicans -- demonstrate that the "smartest people in the room" have failed to grasp what the Tea Party knows is at stake.
The O'Donnell win is like my favorite line from the movie The Fugitive. U.S. Marshall Tommy Lee Jones has fugitive Harrison Ford cornered. Ford says, "I didn't kill my wife." Jones replies, "I don't care."
His job wasn't to sort that out on the spot. His job was to bring in the fugitive. Sometimes justice gets sorted out later.
The Tea Party has an urgent mission. Justice will be sorted out. Noonan, Matthews, and Stoddard are at least beginning to grasp what is happening. Others -- professional political consultants, the political media, the political class, indeed, all who have a vested interest in big government -- are in denial.
Karl Rove defended his self-ruinous election eve attack of O'Donnell on Fox News' Hannity show by claiming he's not a cheerleader for every Republican candidate.
Funny, prior to Tuesday night, that's exactly what he was. He was also the cheerleader for policies that ended the Republican congressional majority and is as responsible as anyone for bringing about that "Hope and Change" thing. If he was the "Architect," the people rejected his blueprint.
The media's foremost elitist "common man," Bill O'Reilly, defended his friend and Fox News colleague Rove: he opened his show Thursday by reiterating Rove's "concerns" that O'Donnell isn't what they think the ideal candidate should be.
O'Reilly was more genteel and tepid in his description of O'Donnell's opponent in the general election, a once-self-described Marxist, referring to him as perhaps a "socialist." O'Reilly said the Delaware general election pits extreme ideology against extreme ideology.
Bill, let me break it to you. One ideology is against freedom and is a proven failure.
In this first federal election of the Tea Party era, we won't get all George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons. We'll take a few Patrick Henrys, Nathan Hales, James Otises, and others whose names won't make the history books. The Washingtons and Jeffersons may come. This is America. We always rise to the challenge. But we ain't waiting.
The O'Donnell win is the people telling the establishment, "'We don't care.' You are failed stewards of freedom and our great national treasure, and you have messed up things so badly that you need to be replaced -- now -- before it's too late."
Now, in every election, there are disappointments on all sides. However, any losses by Tea Party-backed candidates, but especially by O'Donnell, will come with highly charged "I-told-you-so" moments.
On the other hand, wins by all Tea Party candidates -- and especially O'Donnell -- would come with hand-wringing, excuses, and a litany of "professional" reasons designed only to further the false narrative about the Tea Party.
Fox News has been a great addition to the national news media, but it tends to have an establishment Republican slant. I wish there were a non-establishment, constitutional, conservative competitor network to capture the rest of the huge American center-right market (hint, hint). We'd perhaps get a better post-election picture in the Tea Party era.
The point is, it's no longer establishment Republicans vying against Democrats. Thursday I got a mass e-mail from National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Pete Sessions with the subject line, "What's Scarier: 9.6% Unemployment? Or John Boehner?"
The purpose was to mock Democrats' recent attempts to demonize Boehner, who they assuredly now believe will be Speaker in the face of devastating losses in November.
To Tea Partiers who have no allegiance to incumbents, however, it sends the wrong message. It's like asking them: "Who's worse? Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, or the failed Karl Rove Republican establishment?"
In that regard, Sessions' e-mail is like the famous Jack Benny skit in which a thief approaches him and demands, "Your money or your life." Benny pauses. The thief then says, "Well, what is it?" Benny replies, "I'm thinking; I'm thinking."
There isn't a Tea Partier who doesn't understand the danger of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda. Any Republican taking any title for granted, however, is a problem. Now, you've got to earn it. With this first federal election of the Tea Party era, the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils.
Christine O'Donnell is that lesson. At Friday's Values Voter Summit in Washington, she said, "They don't get it. We're not trying to take back our country. We are our country." That reminded me of another outsider derided by the establishment: Ronald Reagan.
With Democrats on the run in so many races, their resources are stretched. Democrats will need to rely on bitter Republicans to fend off O'Donnell's run in Delaware. Conservatives mustn't allow the bitter Republicans to destroy the chance to take the Senate by backing down from, or making excuses for, their establishment "friends."
The 2010 elections will show who's on our side. It's up to the people who care too much about America to no longer care what the establishment thinks of them.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
You are not smart enough or an American so you cannot see the damage she has done.:LMAO
Yeah she is electable alright.:houra
You are not smart enough or an American so you cannot see the damage she has done.:LMAO
Yeah she is electable alright.:houra
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
And Castle would have won.This dingy broad makes Palin look smart and their is no way this thing can win.It would be the biggest upset in political history and I do not see it happening.But as long as the Tea Party thinks they have accomplished something that is great isn't it.:doh1
And Castle would have won.This dingy broad makes Palin look smart and their is no way this thing can win.It would be the biggest upset in political history and I do not see it happening.But as long as the Tea Party thinks they have accomplished something that is great isn't it.:doh1
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
I love how these kooky 'progressives' are freaking out, calling her 'extreme'.
Barry Goldwater once said that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
So Christine 'dabbled' in witchcraft as teenager. Big deal. The illegal Kenyan dabbled in Sharia. Which is worse?
So long as Christine O'Donnell can cast a spell to throw the Marxist POS out of office, she has my full support!
I love how these kooky 'progressives' are freaking out, calling her 'extreme'.
Barry Goldwater once said that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
So Christine 'dabbled' in witchcraft as teenager. Big deal. The illegal Kenyan dabbled in Sharia. Which is worse?
So long as Christine O'Donnell can cast a spell to throw the Marxist POS out of office, she has my full support!
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="800"><tbody><tr><td align="left">
Return to the Article</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
O'Donnell vs. Coons: Analyzing Extremism
By Selwyn Duke
Unlike for most Americans, the Delaware senatorial primary was not my first introduction to Christine O'Donnell. I remembered her from as far back as approximately fifteen years ago, making appearances on shows such as "Politically Incorrect." So when I heard about her supposed "extremist views," I had to wonder if I was overlooking something. It's hard to forget such a pretty face, but did I fail to recollect some strange aspect of her ideology?
So I did a Google search and quickly found criticism of her at the Huffington Compost. "What better source for getting the dirt, real and imagined, on a Tea Party candidate?" I thought. Yet I figured I knew what I'd find, and I was right. Had she ever proclaimed herself a Marxist? No, that was her opponent, Chris Coons. Had she ever belonged to a socialist party? No, that was Barack Obama in the 1990s. Did she once advocate forced abortions and sterilization? No, that was the president's "science czar," John Holdren. Had she headed up an organization that promoted "fisting" for 14-year-olds and books featuring sex acts between preschoolers? No -- while Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings did do that, O'Donnell's sin is far different:
She believes in sexual purity.
To be precise, she is a Catholic who embraces the totality of the Church's teachings on sexuality. I could elaborate on that, as I'm a devout Catholic myself, but this misses the point. To wit: The most the left can do when trying to cast O'Donnell as a danger in government is cite something that she believes has nothing to do with government. She won't propose the "Self-gratification Control Act" of 2011 any more than she will mandate that you must attend Mass on Sundays, fast during Lent, or believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Note that former senator Rick Santorum never did, and as a devout Catholic who often attends Mass even on weekdays, he presumably believes all O'Donnell does.) What the left is mischaracterizing as her ideology is actually her theology of the body.
Then, I must say that I tire of how the word "extremism" is bandied about so thoughtlessly. This isn't primarily because the label is often misapplied. It is because it is always misunderstood.
The late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." But to be more precise, extremism that reflects Truth is a virtue. After all, if you live in a land where everyone believes 2+2=5 and you insist it is 4, you'll be considered an extremist. All being an "extremist" means is that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream. It doesn't mean you're wrong.
But we don't talk about wrong, or right, as much as we should in this relativistic culture. Instead, believing that "man is the measure of all things," we naturally take the norms of current civilization as the default and any deviation from them as defect (in fairness, all cultures tend to be guilty of this). But the reality is that while Truth sometimes lies at the center of a culture, at other, times it occupies the fringes. Sometimes, like with an abolitionist in 1800, an extremist is just someone who is right fifty years too soon. Or you could say that an extremist may be someone who upholds the wisdom of the ageless despite the folly of the age.
So saying someone is an extremist relates nothing about his rightness. The problem with Islamic extremists, for instance, isn't that they're extreme -- any truly religious person is thus viewed in a secular time. It's that they're extremely wrong. This brings us to O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons.
Since the left is digging up old O'Donnell quotations, it's only fair to delve into Coons' past. And when we do, we find this interesting bit of extremism: An article he wrote titled "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." It details how a trip to Kenya that Coons took as a junior in college served as a "catalyst," completing his transformation from "conservative" to communist. Yet while one could elaborate further here as well, as with O'Donnell, this misses the point. To wit: Marxism has everything to do with government, as it is about transforming it through socialist revolution into something tried and untrue, something that slays the light and visits a dark age of a thousand sorrows upon its victims. It's something that killed 100,000,000 people during the 20<sup>th</sup> century and every economy it ever touched. That is a negative extremism if ever there were one, and it should scare the heck out of every one of us.
And what is this supposedly balanced with on O'Donnell's side?
Oh, yeah, the sexual purity thing.
Of course, Coons' piece was written 25 years ago when he was 21 and will be excused by some as youthful indiscretion. But I'll make two points.
First, the ability to profile properly is always necessary when choosing candidates, as the information you will have on them is always limited and managed. A politician certainly wouldn't admit to harboring Marxist passions; thus, in keeping with the maxim "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," the best yardstick we have for measuring Coons is actions and pronouncements taken/made before he had a vested interest in lying about his aims. (And wouldn't we instinctively apply this when judging someone with a neo-Nazi or KKK history? Would we give David Duke the benefit of the doubt many would give Coons?) Second, when profiling, know this: People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists. Those who remain leftists usually haven't renounced anything but honesty about their intentions.
The reason why we should fear Coons is the exact reason why leftists fear O'Donnell: In their universe, moral statements are synonymous with policy positions. If they don't like salt, fat, tobacco (paging Mayor Bloomberg) or free markets, they play Big Brother and give us a very unfree society. But traditionalist Americans are different: We don't think that every supposedly good idea should be legislated. We understand that government and its coercion aren't the only forces for controlling man's behavior; there is also something called society, with its traditions, social codes, and persuasion, and something else called individual striving. We can preach sexual purity while also practicing constitutional purity. As to this, note that while some snarky leftists have criticized O'Donnell for living in the 1800s, the men who gave us our Constitution lived in the 1700s. And the norm back then was to have traditional sexual mores. But guess what they didn't have: Marxism.
Speaking of which, that great adherent of Marx, V.I. Lenin, once said, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Given that we have a government poised to do just this -- with steep tax increases and rapid money-printing that will cause inflation -- should we really be concerned about a candidate's views on sexual propriety? Or should we be more concerned about a candidate who may be harboring Marxist passions?
So all the libertines amongst us should know that Christine O'Donnell will not take their sex toys away. But Chris Coons may want to take all their toys away. To vote for him is to play with fire.
Contact Selwyn Duke
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="800"><tbody><tr><td align="left">
Return to the Article</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
O'Donnell vs. Coons: Analyzing Extremism
By Selwyn Duke
Unlike for most Americans, the Delaware senatorial primary was not my first introduction to Christine O'Donnell. I remembered her from as far back as approximately fifteen years ago, making appearances on shows such as "Politically Incorrect." So when I heard about her supposed "extremist views," I had to wonder if I was overlooking something. It's hard to forget such a pretty face, but did I fail to recollect some strange aspect of her ideology?
So I did a Google search and quickly found criticism of her at the Huffington Compost. "What better source for getting the dirt, real and imagined, on a Tea Party candidate?" I thought. Yet I figured I knew what I'd find, and I was right. Had she ever proclaimed herself a Marxist? No, that was her opponent, Chris Coons. Had she ever belonged to a socialist party? No, that was Barack Obama in the 1990s. Did she once advocate forced abortions and sterilization? No, that was the president's "science czar," John Holdren. Had she headed up an organization that promoted "fisting" for 14-year-olds and books featuring sex acts between preschoolers? No -- while Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings did do that, O'Donnell's sin is far different:
She believes in sexual purity.
To be precise, she is a Catholic who embraces the totality of the Church's teachings on sexuality. I could elaborate on that, as I'm a devout Catholic myself, but this misses the point. To wit: The most the left can do when trying to cast O'Donnell as a danger in government is cite something that she believes has nothing to do with government. She won't propose the "Self-gratification Control Act" of 2011 any more than she will mandate that you must attend Mass on Sundays, fast during Lent, or believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Note that former senator Rick Santorum never did, and as a devout Catholic who often attends Mass even on weekdays, he presumably believes all O'Donnell does.) What the left is mischaracterizing as her ideology is actually her theology of the body.
Then, I must say that I tire of how the word "extremism" is bandied about so thoughtlessly. This isn't primarily because the label is often misapplied. It is because it is always misunderstood.
The late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." But to be more precise, extremism that reflects Truth is a virtue. After all, if you live in a land where everyone believes 2+2=5 and you insist it is 4, you'll be considered an extremist. All being an "extremist" means is that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream. It doesn't mean you're wrong.
But we don't talk about wrong, or right, as much as we should in this relativistic culture. Instead, believing that "man is the measure of all things," we naturally take the norms of current civilization as the default and any deviation from them as defect (in fairness, all cultures tend to be guilty of this). But the reality is that while Truth sometimes lies at the center of a culture, at other, times it occupies the fringes. Sometimes, like with an abolitionist in 1800, an extremist is just someone who is right fifty years too soon. Or you could say that an extremist may be someone who upholds the wisdom of the ageless despite the folly of the age.
So saying someone is an extremist relates nothing about his rightness. The problem with Islamic extremists, for instance, isn't that they're extreme -- any truly religious person is thus viewed in a secular time. It's that they're extremely wrong. This brings us to O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons.
Since the left is digging up old O'Donnell quotations, it's only fair to delve into Coons' past. And when we do, we find this interesting bit of extremism: An article he wrote titled "Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist." It details how a trip to Kenya that Coons took as a junior in college served as a "catalyst," completing his transformation from "conservative" to communist. Yet while one could elaborate further here as well, as with O'Donnell, this misses the point. To wit: Marxism has everything to do with government, as it is about transforming it through socialist revolution into something tried and untrue, something that slays the light and visits a dark age of a thousand sorrows upon its victims. It's something that killed 100,000,000 people during the 20<sup>th</sup> century and every economy it ever touched. That is a negative extremism if ever there were one, and it should scare the heck out of every one of us.
And what is this supposedly balanced with on O'Donnell's side?
Oh, yeah, the sexual purity thing.
Of course, Coons' piece was written 25 years ago when he was 21 and will be excused by some as youthful indiscretion. But I'll make two points.
First, the ability to profile properly is always necessary when choosing candidates, as the information you will have on them is always limited and managed. A politician certainly wouldn't admit to harboring Marxist passions; thus, in keeping with the maxim "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior," the best yardstick we have for measuring Coons is actions and pronouncements taken/made before he had a vested interest in lying about his aims. (And wouldn't we instinctively apply this when judging someone with a neo-Nazi or KKK history? Would we give David Duke the benefit of the doubt many would give Coons?) Second, when profiling, know this: People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists. Those who remain leftists usually haven't renounced anything but honesty about their intentions.
The reason why we should fear Coons is the exact reason why leftists fear O'Donnell: In their universe, moral statements are synonymous with policy positions. If they don't like salt, fat, tobacco (paging Mayor Bloomberg) or free markets, they play Big Brother and give us a very unfree society. But traditionalist Americans are different: We don't think that every supposedly good idea should be legislated. We understand that government and its coercion aren't the only forces for controlling man's behavior; there is also something called society, with its traditions, social codes, and persuasion, and something else called individual striving. We can preach sexual purity while also practicing constitutional purity. As to this, note that while some snarky leftists have criticized O'Donnell for living in the 1800s, the men who gave us our Constitution lived in the 1700s. And the norm back then was to have traditional sexual mores. But guess what they didn't have: Marxism.
Speaking of which, that great adherent of Marx, V.I. Lenin, once said, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Given that we have a government poised to do just this -- with steep tax increases and rapid money-printing that will cause inflation -- should we really be concerned about a candidate's views on sexual propriety? Or should we be more concerned about a candidate who may be harboring Marxist passions?
So all the libertines amongst us should know that Christine O'Donnell will not take their sex toys away. But Chris Coons may want to take all their toys away. To vote for him is to play with fire.
Contact Selwyn Duke
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
We all know who tank would choose. :doh1
We all know who tank would choose. :doh1
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
palin/o'donnel would be super in the white house. Im giddy just thinking about it.
limbaugh/beck would be the only thing better.
comedy material forever.
palin/o'donnel would be super in the white house. Im giddy just thinking about it.
limbaugh/beck would be the only thing better.
comedy material forever.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
O?Donnell nearing $2 million mark since winning primary
Share15
posted at 2:55 pm on September 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
<small>printer-friendly </small>
If Christine O?Donnell?s supporters are worried about the eleven-year-old video released by Bill Maher last week in which the Delaware nominee for the Senate talked about ?witchcraft,? they?re not demonstrating it where it counts: the bank account. Since winning the primary six days ago, O?Donnell has gone on a fundraising tear, nearing what Scott Brown raised in Massachusetts earlier this year in his special election effort:The Boss Emeritus had plenty to say this weekend about the ?witchcraft? clip and how the media portrayed it:This comes from eleven years ago, and O?Donnell was talking about an incident from high school. Clearly, she was talking about Wicca (and perhaps misunderstanding it a bit as well), a religion that liberals (and a few conservatives, too) fought to get recognized by the VA for military headstones. It?s about as relevant as Dungeons and Dragons, and as threatening as well. It seems that donors have a better sense of perspective than some in the media.
The real magic in this race appears to be O?Donnell?s, and it?s not due to witchcraft.
O?Donnell nearing $2 million mark since winning primary
Share15
posted at 2:55 pm on September 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
<small>printer-friendly </small>
If Christine O?Donnell?s supporters are worried about the eleven-year-old video released by Bill Maher last week in which the Delaware nominee for the Senate talked about ?witchcraft,? they?re not demonstrating it where it counts: the bank account. Since winning the primary six days ago, O?Donnell has gone on a fundraising tear, nearing what Scott Brown raised in Massachusetts earlier this year in his special election effort:
The real magic in this race appears to be O?Donnell?s, and it?s not due to witchcraft.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Psst, it's the witchcraft.
Honestly, is there a bigger loser on TV than Bill Mayer?
Psst, it's the witchcraft.
Honestly, is there a bigger loser on TV than Bill Mayer?
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Christine O'Donnell Is A 'Criminal,' Claims CREW - ABC News
rut roh.
she is a criminal who used campaign funds for rent and entertainment.
this sucks. I wanted her in the white house.
oh well,still have palin.:cheers
Christine O'Donnell Is A 'Criminal,' Claims CREW - ABC News
rut roh.
she is a criminal who used campaign funds for rent and entertainment.
this sucks. I wanted her in the white house.
oh well,still have palin.:cheers
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
That's not all on this dope!!:LMAOIt only get's better just wait.The Canadian has no clue like usual.:yay
That's not all on this dope!!:LMAOIt only get's better just wait.The Canadian has no clue like usual.:yay
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Let me guess....it is all make believe and the tapes are lies?Cannot wait to see how Freerepublic tells you to think on this one.
Considering he has 22 more tapes that expose the dumbass for how stupid she really is I would call him genius.
Let me guess....it is all make believe and the tapes are lies?Cannot wait to see how Freerepublic tells you to think on this one.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
:LMAOWell if the boss emeritus see's it that way then it is okay!!!!!!!!!!:LMAO:LMAO
God I love this!!!Yes clearly she was talking about Wicca!!!:LMAOUnreal the depths these idiots will go too.
:LMAOWell if the boss emeritus see's it that way then it is okay!!!!!!!!!!:LMAO:LMAO
God I love this!!!Yes clearly she was talking about Wicca!!!:LMAOUnreal the depths these idiots will go too.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Damnit it's Wicca get the line right for shit sakes.You are already blowing it and are going to screw this whole thing up.Damnit!!!
Damnit it's Wicca get the line right for shit sakes.You are already blowing it and are going to screw this whole thing up.Damnit!!!
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Who's picking up the tab for the tea party?
Who's picking up the tab for the tea party? - Yahoo! News
Well golly I wonder why??
Who's picking up the tab for the tea party?
Who's picking up the tab for the tea party? - Yahoo! News
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
<table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>
</td><td width="100%" bgcolor="#ffe4c4" height="2"><img alt="" width="1" height="1"></td><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table> Not only is tea bircher Christine O'Donnell, the new face of the Republidolt
party, bat shit fucking crazy, she's also an incredible IDIOT. Witness...
------
http://www.examiner.com/science-policy-in-austin/christine-o-donnell-...
Christine O'Donnell is deeply confused on geology and science
The new Tea Party candidate for Senate in the state of Delaware is seriously
confused about Lots of Things including, apparently, the age of the earth
and radiometric dating. New York Magazine dug up some past statements by
Christine O'Donnell which include the usual misinformation that evolution is
just a theory and other claims supporting Young Earth Creationism. Near the
end is this whopper:
O'Donnell -- "First of all, they use carbon dating, as an example, to prove
that something was millions of years old. Well, we have the eruption of Mt.
Saint Helens and the carbon dating test that they used then would have to
then prove that these were hundreds of millions of years younger, when what
happened was they had the exact same results on the fossils and canyons that
they did the tests on that were supposedly 100 millions of years old."
Nope. No ma'am. That never happened and I'll tell you why: Radiocarbon 14
dating is only used to determine the age of organic objects -- that is
mostly remains of once living objects which incorporated atmospheric carbon
while alive -- that are less than one-hundred thousand years-old. The method
can't be used on inorganic remains, like volcanic ash, that are millions or
hundreds of millions of years old. It simply wont work anymore than a
submarine can fly.
...
Odds are O'Donnell has no idea she was repeating a well debunked myth and
that she's completely unaware she garbled the falsified point she was trying
to make.
------
Stupid, ignorant and crazy. No wonder tea baggers love her so! She's a
candidate that's just like them.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
:LMAO
<table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>
</td><td width="100%" bgcolor="#ffe4c4" height="2"><img alt="" width="1" height="1"></td><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table> Not only is tea bircher Christine O'Donnell, the new face of the Republidolt
party, bat shit fucking crazy, she's also an incredible IDIOT. Witness...
------
http://www.examiner.com/science-policy-in-austin/christine-o-donnell-...
Christine O'Donnell is deeply confused on geology and science
The new Tea Party candidate for Senate in the state of Delaware is seriously
confused about Lots of Things including, apparently, the age of the earth
and radiometric dating. New York Magazine dug up some past statements by
Christine O'Donnell which include the usual misinformation that evolution is
just a theory and other claims supporting Young Earth Creationism. Near the
end is this whopper:
O'Donnell -- "First of all, they use carbon dating, as an example, to prove
that something was millions of years old. Well, we have the eruption of Mt.
Saint Helens and the carbon dating test that they used then would have to
then prove that these were hundreds of millions of years younger, when what
happened was they had the exact same results on the fossils and canyons that
they did the tests on that were supposedly 100 millions of years old."
Nope. No ma'am. That never happened and I'll tell you why: Radiocarbon 14
dating is only used to determine the age of organic objects -- that is
mostly remains of once living objects which incorporated atmospheric carbon
while alive -- that are less than one-hundred thousand years-old. The method
can't be used on inorganic remains, like volcanic ash, that are millions or
hundreds of millions of years old. It simply wont work anymore than a
submarine can fly.
...
Odds are O'Donnell has no idea she was repeating a well debunked myth and
that she's completely unaware she garbled the falsified point she was trying
to make.
------
Stupid, ignorant and crazy. No wonder tea baggers love her so! She's a
candidate that's just like them.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
:LMAO
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
'Tea party' candidate Christine O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft remarks - latimes.com
"One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that," she said. "We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."
Yep it's Wicca alright!!:doh1
'Tea party' candidate Christine O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft remarks - latimes.com
"One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that," she said. "We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar."
Yep it's Wicca alright!!:doh1
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
slacktivist: "Unelectable"
Every candidate brings a certain amount of baggage -- past indiscretions, misstatements, personal failings. O'Donnell has more than the usual share of these. Many of them are substantial -- her anti-masturbation crusade, her misrepresentations of her college degree, her misrepresentations of her lawsuit against her last full-time employer, her misrepresentations of her personal finances, tax history and foreclosure, the gap between her advocacy of abstinence and chastity and her apparent living situation, her weird belief that 71-year-old Mike Castle hides in her bushes at night, her lack of gainful employment, her unsubstantiated claims of politically motivated burglary at her home. That's quite a list -- and there's more where that came from -- but that's not what I mean when I refer to O'Donnell's extreme behavior. All of that, separately or cumulatively, might be characterized as extreme, but that's not the most extreme aspect of her behavior. So bracket all of that.
The real reason Christine O'Donnell is unelectable is that she allegedly has violated campaign finance laws on a daily basis for years, enriching herself and her boyfriend with political contributions.
O'Donnell's home address -- the one she lists on her voter registration -- is the townhouse pictured above where she lives with her boyfriend (notice it doesn't have bushes). That townhouse is apparently paid for in large measure by campaign contributions, as is her income and that of her boyfriend/aide.
O'Donnell has thus far failed to explain how this apparent arrangement is legal.
slacktivist: "Unelectable"
Every candidate brings a certain amount of baggage -- past indiscretions, misstatements, personal failings. O'Donnell has more than the usual share of these. Many of them are substantial -- her anti-masturbation crusade, her misrepresentations of her college degree, her misrepresentations of her lawsuit against her last full-time employer, her misrepresentations of her personal finances, tax history and foreclosure, the gap between her advocacy of abstinence and chastity and her apparent living situation, her weird belief that 71-year-old Mike Castle hides in her bushes at night, her lack of gainful employment, her unsubstantiated claims of politically motivated burglary at her home. That's quite a list -- and there's more where that came from -- but that's not what I mean when I refer to O'Donnell's extreme behavior. All of that, separately or cumulatively, might be characterized as extreme, but that's not the most extreme aspect of her behavior. So bracket all of that.
The real reason Christine O'Donnell is unelectable is that she allegedly has violated campaign finance laws on a daily basis for years, enriching herself and her boyfriend with political contributions.
O'Donnell's home address -- the one she lists on her voter registration -- is the townhouse pictured above where she lives with her boyfriend (notice it doesn't have bushes). That townhouse is apparently paid for in large measure by campaign contributions, as is her income and that of her boyfriend/aide.
O'Donnell has thus far failed to explain how this apparent arrangement is legal.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Still doesn't compare to the illegal Kenyan practicing Sharia. :doh1
Still doesn't compare to the illegal Kenyan practicing Sharia. :doh1
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
That's a tough call for me.Obama is a dipshit but O'Donell is stupid. You just can't fix stupid.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
BREAKING NEWS:
Chris Coons: Volunteer for Liberation Theology
Ruh oh!
BREAKING NEWS:
Chris Coons: Volunteer for Liberation Theology
Ruh oh!
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
This is why I wanted Castle to win.Not a sore loser but when Biden's own son does not run because he knows he cannot beat Castle that tells you something. Now with these 2 dingbats who knows?
This is why I wanted Castle to win.Not a sore loser but when Biden's own son does not run because he knows he cannot beat Castle that tells you something. Now with these 2 dingbats who knows?
KingRevolver
Born Rambler
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
There's people who actually like this dumb broad? Well, I do think she's smarter than Palin but that's not saying much.
There's people who actually like this dumb broad? Well, I do think she's smarter than Palin but that's not saying much.
KingRevolver
Born Rambler
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
I used to watch her on Bill Maher's old show on ABC. He had her on a bunch of times.
One time she went on and on about how she never lies - they have that episode up on Youtube. And the comic, Eddie Izzard, asked her... If Hitler were at your door and you had Jews hiding in your house- would you lie about it? She replied something like, "In that situation, I would ask God to lead me in the right direction and give me the answer."
ROFLMAO!
I used to watch her on Bill Maher's old show on ABC. He had her on a bunch of times.
One time she went on and on about how she never lies - they have that episode up on Youtube. And the comic, Eddie Izzard, asked her... If Hitler were at your door and you had Jews hiding in your house- would you lie about it? She replied something like, "In that situation, I would ask God to lead me in the right direction and give me the answer."
ROFLMAO!
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
sounds like a politician to me.
sounds like a politician to me.
KingRevolver
Born Rambler
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Well, that, and she's schizophrenic talking to her imaginary friend.
Well, that, and she's schizophrenic talking to her imaginary friend.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
glenn beck has that down to a science.
glenn beck has that down to a science.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
No wonder these evil progressives hate this woman so much...
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qtdU5Fz1b_w?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qtdU5Fz1b_w?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G7EQbSdQ_os?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G7EQbSdQ_os?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
No wonder these evil progressives hate this woman so much...
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qtdU5Fz1b_w?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qtdU5Fz1b_w?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G7EQbSdQ_os?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G7EQbSdQ_os?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Calling Newt a progressive along with many other GOPers with a brain that know she is a idiot makes Joe look stupid as usual.Good job Joe!!
Calling Newt a progressive along with many other GOPers with a brain that know she is a idiot makes Joe look stupid as usual.Good job Joe!!
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Yes Joe they are scared of her alright.:yay
First Read - Karl Rove vindicated?
Karl Rove vindicated? From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's the reason why Karl Rove and many establishment Republicans did not want Christine O'Donnell to win last week's GOP Senate primary in Delaware.
A new CNN/Time poll finds Chris Coons (D) leading Christine O'Donnell (R) by 16 points among likely voters in Delaware's Senate race, 55%-39%.
But if Mike Castle, beaten by O'Donnell in last week's primary, were the GOP nominee, he would have an 18-point lead over Coons, 55%-37%.
That's a 34-point swing.
Yes Joe they are scared of her alright.:yay
First Read - Karl Rove vindicated?
Karl Rove vindicated? From NBC's Mark Murray
Here's the reason why Karl Rove and many establishment Republicans did not want Christine O'Donnell to win last week's GOP Senate primary in Delaware.
A new CNN/Time poll finds Chris Coons (D) leading Christine O'Donnell (R) by 16 points among likely voters in Delaware's Senate race, 55%-39%.
But if Mike Castle, beaten by O'Donnell in last week's primary, were the GOP nominee, he would have an 18-point lead over Coons, 55%-37%.
That's a 34-point swing.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
TV host Maher shows another O'Donnell clip - Yahoo! News
"Evolution is a myth," O'Donnell said, starting to explain her position before Maher interrupted.
"Evolution is a myth?" he asked. "Have you ever looked at a monkey?"
"Well then why aren't they, why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" O'Donnell responded.
TV host Maher shows another O'Donnell clip - Yahoo! News
"Evolution is a myth," O'Donnell said, starting to explain her position before Maher interrupted.
"Evolution is a myth?" he asked. "Have you ever looked at a monkey?"
"Well then why aren't they, why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" O'Donnell responded.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
She's being kind.
Darwinism is total junk science from beginning to end.
She's being kind.
Darwinism is total junk science from beginning to end.
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ~ Mice with human brains!
Christine O'Donnell ~ Mice with human brains!
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ~ Mice with human brains!
Christine O'Donnell ~ Mice with human brains!
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
SNL is already having fun with her.Enjoy!!
Saturday Night Live
I don't think much of any politicians but this broad is just plain bat shit crazy.She is dumber than Palin!!She is a comedians dream.
SNL is already having fun with her.Enjoy!!
Saturday Night Live