Teabagger Whacktard Christine O’Donnell Warns Against Mice With Human Brains!

[vwgub]

They are doing this right now, in the sense that they feel that they've stretched various clauses to the point that the FederalGov can do anything which they want it to do. Unfortunately, in so doing they've spent us into a serious hole. Strict construction as these fiscal conservatives view it is "if it's not spelled out as a duty of the FederalGov, we don't vote for it or pay for it".

For example, I would argue that under those premises we could easily do away with the Dept. of Education - we did fine without it until Nixon started the thing. Not sure that's O'Donnell's view, just giving you an example.

Nice. Where was I talking about spending? Do you talk to your friends like this?

Friend 1: I want to go see The Godfather I've heard it's a great movie.
Cicero: I don't know I heard it's about a bunch of criminals.
Friend 2: Yeah, but it's a great epic about loyalty and adversity.
Cicero: But I don't understand Italian and I hate reading subtitles.


I watched Godfather Part 1 and 2 together the other day

 

[mhaze]

Nice. Where was I talking about spending? Do you talk to your friends like this?

Friend 1: I want to go see The Godfather I've heard it's a great movie.
Cicero: I don't know I heard it's about a bunch of criminals.
Friend 2: Yeah, but it's a great epic about loyalty and adversity.
Cicero: But I don't understand Italian and I hate reading subtitles.

I watched Godfather Part 1 and 2 together the other day

You weren't talking about spending, it's just that right now if someone looks like they'll hardline on no spending, they have got good chances in these races. Irregardless of other weak or detrimental attributes.

molto bene!

 

[vwgub]

You weren't talking about spending, it's just that right now if someone looks like they'll hardline on no spending, they have got good chances in these races. Irregardless of other weak or detrimental attributes.

molto bene!

No they don't. Only stupid people believe that the government spending no money is a good thing.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Side note: Mice with human brains would watch what type pron, exactly?

Fur flicks.

 

[Unabogie]

You weren't talking about spending, it's just that right now if someone looks like they'll hardline on no spending, they have got good chances in these races. Irregardless of other weak or detrimental attributes.

molto bene!

I think we can agree on two things here. TPM isn't actually funded by Soros and irregardless isn't actually a word.

 

[BenBurch]

"irrespective" is the correct and literate word.

 

[Ladewig]

I think we can agree on two things here. TPM isn't actually funded by Soros and irregardless isn't actually a word.

Mhaze might have been making the little joke by using that word.

 

[mhaze]

No they don't. Only stupid people believe that the government spending no money is a good thing.

But in numerous categories of spending that's the position a lot of people have reached, after what seems to them like much abuse and incurable spendthrift patterns of behavior on the part of people in DC.

We are talking about a US debt that exceeds the total money in the world. Already. So their attitudes didn't just come out of nowhere, did they?

Basically that's how someone like O'Donnell gets on the ticket - saying she will hardline fiscal issues, and running against someone who was described by Harry Reid as "my pet", who has studied under Marxist professors in Kenya, and who has always had been pretty far bent in the direction of socialism.

That's that contest. O'Donnell has major flaws, but those voters have a choice between two people, each of whom has major flaws. And one will rubberstamp the spending, the other will cut it.

The O'Donnell issue isn't about mice-human chimeras, that's misdirection. So is the issue of religion. It's about whether the people who are spending get to keep doing so or not.

 

[BenBurch]

Mhaze might have been making the little joke by using that word.

Sadly, no.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'd disagree with that. In saying this I think she's applying a strict constitutionality standard, because that's most typically what this crop of Tea Party candidates do.

Of course. They apply their version of the Constitution.

 

[mhaze]

Hmmm....well, I linked to the article discussing different ways of interpreting the Constitution. Reading, understanding, learning some new words and phrases...

You? No, never mind...

 

[eeyore1954]

I think we can agree on two things here. TPM isn't actually funded by Soros and irregardless isn't actually a word.

It should be a word it has been in common usage for as long as I can remember to mean basically the same thing as irrespective. i don't know anything about Soros other than I hear he is a liberal billionaire.

 

[Unabogie]

It should be a word it has been in common usage for as long as I can remember to mean basically the same thing as irrespective. i don't know anything about Soros other than I hear he is a liberal billionaire.

I keep dinging him on this because he keeps ducking the question, which I think is cowardly. It's ok to be wrong, irregardless of whether or not irregardless is a word

He should just admit he had no proof and made a mistake, right?

 

[DavidJames]

It should be a word it has been in common usage for as long as I can remember...

Yes, I expect it will become a word because ignorance seems to be a defining trait of our evolving society.

 

[BenBurch]

Yes, I expect it will become a word because ignorance seems to be a defining trait of our evolving society.

Bravo.

 

[Biscuit]

But in numerous categories of spending that's the position a lot of people have reached, after what seems to them like much abuse and incurable spendthrift patterns of behavior on the part of people in DC.

People being exasperated by government waste is not the same as wanting an end to government spending. A lot of this is driven by corruption or perceived corruption of career politicians.

We are talking about a US debt that exceeds the total money in the world. Already. So their attitudes didn't just come out of nowhere, did they?

It seems to me as though it has come out of no where. Where was the tea party as the previous administration flushed trillions down the tube and gave handouts to corporations at the peoples expense?

Basically that's how someone like O'Donnell gets on the ticket - saying she will hardline fiscal issues, and running against someone who was described by Harry Reid as "my pet", who has studied under Marxist professors in Kenya, and who has always had been pretty far bent in the direction of socialism.

Who is this person you speak of? Obviously their marxist professors didn't leave much of an imprint if this person is now a socialist. Seems hardly worth mentioning.

That's that contest. O'Donnell has major flaws, but those voters have a choice between two people, each of whom has major flaws. And one will rubberstamp the spending, the other will cut it.

Source? How will she cut spending? Across the board? Cut spending to anything she doesn't deem constitutional? Medicare? highways? Air traffic control? DOD budget? Its not as simple as "cut it".

The O'Donnell issue isn't about mice-human chimeras, that's misdirection. So is the issue of religion. It's about whether the people who are spending get to keep doing so or not.

The O'Donnell issue in this thread is not about chimeras. Its about her false accusation that U.S. scientists are cross breeding mice with humans. Her vague fiscal ideals are ancillary to this thread but for many reinforce a picture of a rank amateur pandering to the masses.

 

[mhaze]

.....The O'Donnell issue in this thread is not about chimeras. Its about her false accusation that U.S. scientists are cross breeding mice with humans. Her vague fiscal ideals are ancillary to this thread but for many reinforce a picture of a rank amateur pandering to the masses.

So? That was my point. Who are the people voting for? What caused O'Donnell to win the Republican primary, against the wishes of Republican strategists?

As for whether her fiscal ideas are vague or not, I wouldn't be so sure. You could go look on her website and that matter would no doubt be clarified. Your saying her fiscal ideas are vague does not make that true.

Not in the least.

Then again, it would say something about the electorate, either in the case of their being "vague" by your standards, or not. In either case, that is the issue that voters are moving on.

Side issues and smear campaigns designed to misdirect from fiscal, economic policy and unemployment rates will quite likely backfire or be tuned out by the voters.

 

[BenBurch]

O'Donnell won because that sort of insanity most closely reflects the views of the majority of voting Republicans. Is there any other point to a democratic system than achieving that result?

 

[funk de fino]

What a nut.

 

[mhaze]

O'Donnell won because that sort of insanity most closely reflects the views of the majority of voting Republicans.....

Yes, I agree.

O'Donnell won because she promoted fiscal insanity - that the government not spend trillions of money that it does not have. Indeed this is insane. Any rational person knows we can borrow from our children and their child without asking their permission.

Those dumb Republicans. Are they trying to stop the party? It was just getting fun. Go ahead, Ben, and grab some of that Obama-money. You can have some. You too can be in on the good times.