At Least The Crazy Candidate
 

from Delaware will get trounced tomorrow. Leave it to the GOP who could have easily won that seat if they had nominated a moderate Mike Castle. Maybe we'll get lucky and the other screwball from Nevada will also lose. Then there's that other extremist from Kentucky who wants to roll back the 20th century. Speaking of crazy candidates and their nutty statements, anyone know when Obama's death panels are going to begin their evil work?

Speaking of crazy, I think Barney Frank is in trouble.

I'm kind of sick of him
 

myself, and wouldn't be terribly upset if he is sent packing.

I pray you are right. Harry Reid needs to go.

Good Comeback
 

You got me on that one.

I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read your post. The death panel thing was a good one.

Death panels? About the time the boomers reach senility, I reckon.

A brilliant political analysis. You could be on MSNBC, you should call them. You'd fit right in. Such cogent observations.

If Castle was such a lock to beat Coons, why couldn't he beat O'Donnel??

Why is it unacceptable to be a candidate that is deemed crazy
 

and allow the crazy incumbents to remain unscathed?

btk

I did what I could being from District 4 in MA, now we wait :popcorn:

Richie, As I said
 

once before, Lou Card was right about you.

With all due respect, a pompous ass is someone who thinks themselves a bit better than anyone else, and thus far in this thread alone you have called a poster a name and a candidate crazy !

Maybe you should reconsider what you say at times ?

With all due respect
 

you have to admit that both descriptions are spot on.

You sir lack wit and reason. But you being a liberal, we forgive you.

And I'm Really
 

bowled over by the level of discourse that I see every day from you and your fellow conservatives on this forum. Such quips and repartee I have rarely seen before. William Buckley would be so proud.

Also, along with all the attributes previously discussed, now you have demonstrated that you all have a the same sense of humility and humor as the dearly departed Mr. Card. It is wonderful how you can engage in discourse with your fellow bloggers and continually demonstrate your knowledge and insight into the discussions you participate in. Kudos to such a brilliant thinker like yourself.

There you go acting
 

like a pompous ass again.

the only analysis of crazy in this election cycle that i can offer is that the inmates are running the asylum called the federal government!

Bill: Why? Because Christine O'Donnell makes "great TV" and it's easier to repeat the endless supply of idiocy of hers that's on videotape than to go look for others.

I'd really like to discuss her statements from any of the debates she had with the woeful Coons. What statements or responses of hers do you classify an "endless supply of idiocy"?

You only disgrace yourself sir. You reveal yourself more the fool with each response. Keep it up if you wish. Your legend is growing.

What is it that you would like to dicuss WITHOUT THE NAME CALLING that seems to prevail in all of your conversations ? (I note you changed and edited your first response to RichieLion)

PLEASE...PLEASE....every time you are asked to discuss issues you end up making it a lecture series on how you feel about people on this board and NOT the issues.f

Let me give you a list to choose from (or choose your own)

The Health care bill

The Deficit

The war on terrorism and what part this country should play

Open and transparent government

You can pick and choose but please agree that other than a well aimed barb at someone you disagree with (ALL of the well aimed barbs must be shrouded in ACTUAL discussion of the issue you select) and not simply a lecture to, or look down, on other posters.

Your move

There's hope on the rise for a come from behind surge for the "crazy candidate" Christine O'Donnell. OOOOOHHHHH; the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'll have tomorrow if this underestimated and defamed woman prevails, OOOOHHHH, the anguish!!!!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/1...rnout-worries/

I'll tell you
 

what, I'll make you happy and leave this board permanently if she wins that race. Now you can come back with your usual obnoxious, condescending response.

I only revert to what you call "obnoxious and condescending", (I just call it funny), when you cannot defend your opinions and views and then engage in personal attacks on me, or unwarranted and false attacks on others.

You don't have to leave the board and that would not make me happy. What would make me happy is for you to once be able to articulate a thoughtful response in place of your usual defamatory glib remark.

Ok, I'll try harder
 

from now on to be a little less inflammatory. Sorry I got carried away on this thread. Peace.

Right back at you actor. We start anew.

It is like deja vu all over again. Back when you know who was posting in political threatening to leave, and then apologizing and coming back. Now that isn't a jab or saying anything bad or hateful about anybody. It's just an observation. I mean...I'm just saying.

Richie: I haven't seen much from any of her debates, most notably her ignorance on the 1st Ammendment.

What I *have* seen are the numerous excerpts from her approximately 2 dozen appearances on Bill Maher's shows. Some of the lines that I can remember off the top of my head:

- Why aren't monkeys evolving into humans?

- Evolution is a myth

- Masturbation is adultery

- Condoms don't work at all

- Women should 'submit' to men

She is *willfully* ignorant and almost seems to revel in that ignorance.

Again, this is what I remember without resorting to research. I *know* there's a lot more that I'm forgetting. (Yes, I'm deliberately ignoring the 'dabbled in witchcraft' idiocy because, again, she doesn't know what she's talking about)

Bill Maher's show? OMG Consider the source. He was once funny and pertinent, about 20years ago. He is just a liberal shrill, now a days.

They were O'Donnell's own words. When accused of taking things out of context he (Maher) responded by playing the same clip, just a longer version to show just how NOT out-of-context those rather outlandish statements were (and still are, thanks to the magic of videotape).

She appeared on his show some 2 dozen times (I can't remember if the actual number was 22 or 26 but it was in that area).

I find myself increasingly disappointed at Maher's slow slide into being nastier and more of a "name caller" - in particular over the last 4 weeks.

djplong, are you saying you agree with Bill Maher regarding what he said about humans evolving from monkeys in that old clip with Christine ODonnell?

There could be many many threads discussing the new practice of getting our "news" from comedy shows with a spin.

I have no opinion on the Delaware race, but quoting a political hack who failed as a comedian is just foolhardy ! After the MSM got hold of those old clips, this gal had no chance even if she had a message to deliver.

She seems to be the new lightning rod replacing
 

Palin as the attack-ee of all opposition.

btk

You ever notice how that failed comedian from Minnesota never gets any heat? Talk about idiots.:duck:

BK: It was O'Donnell who asked why monkeys weren't "still evolving" into humans. She said this on Maher's old show, "Politically Incorrect". She also said that evolution is a myth.

This demonstrates to me that, not only does she not know what she's talking about (that's bad enough but can be dealt with), but that she proceeds from those ignorant assumptions.

First and foremost, evolution doesn't say we "descended from monkeys". What it says is that chimps, apes and humans HAD A COMMON ANCESTER millions of years ago. In other words, one fork of evolution produced chimpanzees and another fork produced humans.

Secondly, evolution is not a "myth". At *worst* you could call it a theory that has not been disproven but is not iron-clad because there are holes in the fossil record but SO FAR, everything in the fossil record follows along with what evolution describes. In addition she's out of touch with how long evolution takes (thinking that we should be able to see monkeys evolving before our eyes).

Now, to go any further down that subject (evolution) is a debate for another thread.

More on-topic is how candidates like them win their primaries in the first place. It just seems to me that there were a lot more "loonies" in the major parties this year than in years past. I mean, you could always find loonies in the minor, 3rd party and fringe parties. But now?

- O'Donnell, well documented.
- New York had a guy sending bestiality pictures in emails and saying "well, that's the construction biz".
- Rand Paul, an eye doctor certified by a board that HE STARTED (not the board that's been around for 100 years)
- In South Carolina a guy who didn't campaign but won the Democratic primary even though he was under indictment for stalking, could barely form whole sentences and appeared to live in his father's basement.

No, Republicans didn't have a monopoly on crazy candidates.

I'm of the mind that the gauntlet that the press and everyone else puts people through has so thoroughly discouraged good people from running that THESE are the kinds of people we get.

And what do these quirks have to do with running a GOVERNMENT? Are you saying that if a person believes that the earth is flat, it will make him less of a government hack?

I sense a double standard here. Strong independent woman like this lady and Palin get beaten up while the Nancy Pilosi's , who go along with the party lines, get a free ride?

This is the reason why on all the debates between McDonnell and Coons she was asked her opinions on her beliefs instead of substantive questions on her views on the Constitution and her anticipated role in relation to it. She repeatedly tried, and with some success to do this anyway. Despite the picture painted in the news she mopped the floor with the woeful Coons who didn't even know what freedoms the First Amendment granted US citizens.

By the way dj, she was right about the words "separation of church and state" not being in the First Amendment albeit the televised ignorance of the college students and moderators who voiced shocked laughter. This is a great example of the brainwashing of the liberal elite.

All in all Ms. O'Donnell dragged the Delaware Republicans to the conservative side of the aisle and, like Sarah Palin, I expect you'll be seeing more of this talented woman all over television. I also expect her to be derided and called names by liberal talking heads and their disciples, much like the influential Sarah Palin, much to her delight, is derided and underestimated by these same culprits.

I can see 2012 from my house:pepper2:

Good post RICHIELION. I often wonder why the women's groups do not get more upset at what, I at least, consider different treatment of women candidates versus men. Some of the questions would never be asked of a man and I wonder why since they are running for the same offices !