Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tsarwash]

Christine O'Donnell is a disgrace as a politician. She does not know the basics about her country's constitution and yet this does not stop her from getting up on stage and arguing and talking over an rival who does. Watch the video below. (Don't pay too much mind to the subsequent blog and comments,)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe

She doesn't realise that her opinions about Creationism being taught in schools is actually prohibited by the first amendment. First she says that there is no such prohibition, which is recieved by howls of laughter from the audience, (they are speaking at a law college.) Then she confirms her ignorance by incredulously asking if such a thing is actually in the first amendment. Also she cannot when prompted say if she would repeal the (I think) 14th, 15th and 17th amendment, because she doesn't actually know what they are.

She clearly does not know the basics of her countries constitution. I'm really not trying to start a debate about Creationism here, because it is a nice forum and these kind of debates always end in insults and tears. I just want to highlight this woman's ignorance. I'm all for equality, but does it mean that uneducated housewives should enter senate ? US citizens deserve a better kind of politician, IMO.

[Lord Shonus]

The point is that they can't really win in that district anyway, so their main goal is to weaken the victor by sending a loud, boorish candidate to slam him with everything they can, hoping some will stick. That makes it easier for their more serious candidate to win in a later election.

[alway]

The point is that they can't really win in that district anyway, so their main goal is to weaken the victor by sending a loud, boorish candidate to slam him with everything they can, hoping some will stick. That makes it easier for their more serious candidate to win in a later election.

Uh, actually they were expected to win the election had her rival won in the primaries.

She's been sort of a 'herp durp' candidate from the beginning though, what with being a living collection of every bit of crazy you could possibly hope to find in the republican party.

[smigenboger]

Don't they prep themselves for these debates?

[smjjames]

Don't they prep themselves for these debates?

It would make sense, yes, but the being ignorant about the constitution was just blatant. Can't completely fault her for that as we're all human, but she is still kind of crazy to me due to all the other stuff. Her foot in mouth tendency doesn't quite reach that of whats-his-name, the BP CEO, but she at least doesn't go out of her way to insult people. Overall she actually sounds like a nice woman.

[smigenboger]

True, at least her intentions are well. I'm still trying to understand just what the Tea Party are, since they come off as a 'grassroots', 'progressive', 'fundamentalist' group with strawman intentions, who want to gain power, and, well that's it. I wonder if they have any more idea than I do what they'd actually do once they get in.

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. I hate misinformation as much as they next guy.

[Nikov]

The Tea Party got started in a tax protest in which people mailed a bag of tea ot their representatives in congress to show their dissatisfaction with the country's fiscal policies. From that start as a tax protest (not protesting the idea of taxes, but protesting the idea they pay so damned much but the country just keeps running up a debt) they proceeded to develop into a movement for people dissatisfied with their government's sense of responsibility.

Its not so much 'I hate taxes' or 'I hate politicians', but more 'I hate politicians who tax me and then can't balance the budget because they're too busy stuffing pet programs for votes'. Basically Reaganite conservatives, they want to shrink federal government spending and influence, grow the economy and tax base through low taxes, improve the climate for businesses, so on.

There's nothing progressive about it, nor fundamentalist. The religious air of the movement is strong in some regions, but that's mostly because of the people of the area, not because the movement itself is of a religious nature. They're not so interested in gaining power as shaking up the established power structure, getting some swamp-draining done, balancing the budget, and reforming the tax code. After that they'll either fade away or become that long-elusive third party.

[smigenboger]

From that standpoint, I'd be game to get the muck out of what's already being funded by taxes. I'm fine with the current tax rate, though I'd like a flat tax over the income bracket-based tax.

I'd doubt the Tea Party would be as strong if the bureaucracy wasn't as inefficient. Instead of added or subtracting from the budget, why not make it more effective? I wouldn't be surprised if medicare would be fine-tuned to be just as expensive with the new additions as the previous way was, if it is regulated more effectively.

Imagine how horrible the whole thing was before it was filed electronically. Now think of the Titling Bureau.

[ed boy]

I'd doubt the Tea Party would be as strong if the bureaucracy wasn't as inefficient. Instead of added or subtracting from the budget, why not make it more effective?

Saying that is like telling a physicist "You just need to bring the protons really close together."

On the Christine O'Donnell front, she claimed to have gotten a degree from oxford university. As an oxford man, I am offended.

[Leafsnail]

The problem with eliminating bureacracy is that you have to hire bureacrats to do it.  Or just do it at random from a top-down perspective, which is the equivalent of trying to fix a watch with a hammer.

[lordnincompoop]

The problem with eliminating bureacracy is that you have to hire bureacrats to do it.  Or just do it at random from a top-down perspective, which is the equivalent of trying to fix a watch with a hammer.

Apply enough awesome and you can do anything.

[alway]

The problem with eliminating bureacracy is that you have to hire bureacrats to do it.  Or just do it at random from a top-down perspective, which is the equivalent of trying to fix a watch with a hammer.

Apply enough awesome and you can do anything.

Which is exactly why we should all vote for The Rent is Too Damn High Party.
Just look at that facial hair! Obviously he has more awesome than any other candidate to be able to grow something like that.

[Earthquake Damage]

Which is exactly why we should all vote for The Rent is Too Damn High Party.

That website is so awful, the man deserves to win.  No, I don't understand how that works either.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Aqizzar]

That guy's beard is truly a thing to behold.  Same with wearing glove to the debate, and getting the other candidates to break down laughing and start using his own lines.  It's a masterpiece.

I'm not going to bother arguing over the points of theory and such.  But yeah, that O'Donnell.  Oh man.

My favorite part of watching that interview is, while she repeatedly asks incredulously where in the First Amendment can be found language describing any kind of separation of government and religion, as the crowd is openly laughing at her, she turns to them with that giant smug grin on her face.  She honestly believed she was winning that debate, that she had outsmarted the question and was tricking someone into repeating a falsehood.

But if you were wondering how she could stumble over such incredibly obvious, and utterly important for governance, questions like "What's in the First Amendment?" and "What has the Supreme Court decided that you disagree with?", there is an answer.  Her debate preparation and coaching team was made of the same people who coached Sarah Palin, to literally the exact same results to the exact same questions.  Christine O'Donnell is not going to win that election.  But she could very well be a harbinger of things to come; a rapidly entrenching segment of the Republican party that honestly believes you can stick any doofus in front of a camera, and as long as you feed them enough base-rousing applause lines, you have a viable candidate.

She and her press staff are thankful for the reaction she got.  Why?  Because her platform basically boils down to - smart people are bad, dumb people are principled.  Making her opponent look like a pinheaded wiseguy, and making it look like O'Donnell was being derided by those hoighty-toighty campus intellectuals, is exactly what they want, because it gets know-nothing-and-proud-of-it conservative culture-base-voters to the polls.  Thankfully, at least in this case, it probably won't lead to victory.  But victory is really beside the point.  This kind of rabblerousing is turning out to be a fantastic fundraising tactic, or at least career-starting tactic, and while it may not work in the district of the campaign itself, it bleeds into the national media and helps charisma-deprived candidates elsewhere rally the same sort of voters without having to try very hard.  Time will tell.