U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   'Gone Old Party' (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/gone-old-party-207761.html)

the iron horse 09-15-2010 09:57 PM

'Gone Old Party'
 
As a libertarian, I hope this trend continues in the U.S.

In Delaware, frustration with Republican Party led to Christine O'Donnell's win

anitram 09-15-2010 10:25 PM

Are libertarians taking a stand against masturbation these days?

BVS 09-15-2010 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6949305)
As a libertarian, I hope this trend continues in the U.S.

In Delaware, frustration with Republican Party led to Christine O'Donnell's win

You hope more half wit loons win nominations?

Why?

the iron horse 09-15-2010 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 6949389)
You hope more half wit loons win nominations?

Why?




What is your definition of a half wit loon?

BVS 09-15-2010 11:35 PM

Someone who says they want to uphold the Constitution yet doesn't understand separation of church and state and lobbied for "biblical principles to issues of public policy".

Someone who wants to force women to carry to term even in case of rape.

Someone who wants to preach against masturbation.

Someone who speaks out against frivolous litigiousness yet sued for 6.9 million in a wrongful termination suit, where she was only employed less than a year and then lied about the circumstances.

This is who you want?

Shall I go on, or does she qualify under your definition as well?

BVS 09-15-2010 11:55 PM

Why does the Tea Party celebrate such things? Can someone explain?

PhilsFan 09-16-2010 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 6949429)
Why does the Tea Party celebrate such things? Can someone explain?

The Tea Party doesn't celebrate much of what you say. The Tea Party is unaware of much of what you say. I think that's pretty evident.

The Tea Party does support the Bible thing, though.

vaz02 09-16-2010 08:42 AM

Tea Party faction = The American Taliban ?

financeguy 09-16-2010 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6949305)
As a libertarian, I hope this trend continues in the U.S.

In Delaware, frustration with Republican Party led to Christine O'Donnell's win

Libertarianism is apparently a broad church. I consider myself libertarian on some issues but if I was posting this thread it would have been entitled something like "GOP nut thinks wanking equals adultery".

I'd really love to hear how it is you think Christine O'Donnell's win advances libertarian principles.

Now if you'd excuse me I'm off to toss one off.

Pearl 09-16-2010 08:03 PM

Quote:

For O’Donnell, such gay-baiting was very much in character. Toward the end of the Clinton administration, she protested the appointment of James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg, a posting the religious right opposed because Hormel was gay. “The SALT was concerned about Hormel’s ties to the pedophile-rights movement,” her website said, though there was not a shred of evidence behind the slur. In 1997, in a clip recently unearthed by Talking Points Memo, she appeared on C-SPAN, where, looking fresh, lovely, and innocent, she objected to AIDS sufferers being called “victims” because the disease is the product of their own actions. In an appearance on Fox in 2000, she exclaimed over the horrors of New York’s gay pride parade: “They’re getting away with nudity! They’re getting away with lasciviousness! They’re getting away with perversion!”

O’Donnell’s demonization of gay people is especially striking given the fact that, according to Richards, she has a sister who is openly lesbian. Indeed, it was meeting her sister, he says, that helped him begin to accept his own sexuality. “What helped me really come to grips was that her sister is an open lesbian and was living in L.A. and was in a long-term relationship and was working with a youth organization,” he says. “By hanging out with her, I saw, wow, she has a pretty normal life.” Being gay, he started to realize, needn’t condemn him to a life of seedy anonymous hookups, drug abuse, and nihilism.

Christine O’Donnell’s Gay Former Aide Speaks Out - The Daily Beast

Christine O'Donnell is ignorant, uneducated and dangerous. It will be a sad day in America if she becomes Senator of Delaware.

the iron horse 09-16-2010 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl (Post 6950431)
Christine O’Donnell’s Gay Former Aide Speaks Out - The Daily Beast

Christine O'Donnell is ignorant, uneducated and dangerous. It will be a sad day in America if she becomes Senator of Delaware.



And a growing all reaching increasingly intrusive federal government is not?

My thoughts on her victory were not about her, but about the principles of less big government, more liberty that she say she supports.

If she's like me, she is far from perfect and flawed.

Pearl 09-16-2010 09:21 PM

When you say liberty, do you also mean telling people how to live their lives in terms of sexual orientation? Or sexual activity?

She'll probably push for abstinence in schools and vote against same-sex marriage. That doesn't sound like liberty or small government to me.

PhilsFan 09-16-2010 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950458)
And a growing all reaching increasingly intrusive federal government is not?

My thoughts on her victory were not about her, but about the principles of less big government, more liberty that she say she supports.

If she's like me, she is far from perfect and flawed.

She's just saying big government. Literally. She's just using it as a buzzword so sheep will follow. You're falling right in line.

You do realize being anti-gay rights is pro-big government, don't you?

the iron horse 09-16-2010 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilsFan (Post 6950534)
She's just saying big government. Literally. She's just using it as a buzzword so sheep will follow. You're falling right in line.

You do realize being anti-gay rights is pro-big government, don't you?


Buzz word and the the sheep will follow?

So, I'm falling right in line?

Who are the blind sheep here?

I guess it's me or is it?

I don't know, I'm just the stupid libertarian:wave

maycocksean 09-16-2010 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950458)
And a growing all reaching increasingly intrusive federal government is not?


I'm growing so tired of this trope.

Can someone explain to me exactly how the government has become so all-reaching and intrusive?

I didn't think so. It's fearmongering, plain and simple.

I mean, come on "ObamaCare!!!" No one's been able to credibly explain how these tepid health reform measures are going to "take away our freedom."

The "DEFICIT". Sorry my bullshit detector starts screaming when I hear people wringing their hands about something as arcane as the federal deficit. Which is not to say that it's a serious issue--I'm sure it is. I'm just saying most ordinarily people probably can't articulate why it's serious. If we're being the honest the real upset is over WHO is raising the deficit and the reasons for which it's being done--because we started spending more than we had long before this administration came into power--it's just that people hollering now didn't have a problem with the guy before doing the spending or what he was spending the money on. And let's be honest if we're really serious about reducing the deficit we've got to BOTH cut spending AND raise taxes (or at the very least not cut them any further). But who would vote for that?

and oh no the "bailouts!" The idiocy of this country sometimes just boggles the mind. Most people are mad about the bailouts because of an emotional sense of "unfairness" rather than a practical and informed understanding of our financial system.

It is truly sad that reasonable conservatives are being drowned out by this rabble.

maycocksean 09-16-2010 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950578)
Buzz word and the the sheep will follow?

So, I'm falling right in line?

Who are the blind sheep here?

I guess it's me or is it?

I don't know, I'm just the stupid libertarian:wave

IH, if you're not a blind sheep, prove it. Make a credible case for the growing reach of the all-intrusive federal government.

the iron horse 09-16-2010 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean (Post 6950588)
IH, if you're not a blind sheep, prove it. Make a credible case for the growing reach of the all-intrusive federal government.



OK, here's one (just for fries)

Next, Michelle Obama's health reform plan for the nation's restaurant menus and families dining out | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

maycocksean 09-16-2010 10:42 PM

With all due respect, perhaps I wasn't clear enough:

A CREDIBLE case please.

An snarky opinion column with an unflattering picture of Michelle Obama? You'll have to do better than that.

the iron horse 09-16-2010 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean (Post 6950614)
With all due respect, perhaps I wasn't clear enough:

A CREDIBLE case please.

An snarky opinion column with an unflattering picture of Michelle Obama? You'll have to do better than that.


Snarky?

I have to do better?

Did you actually read the article?

Please quote from the article and state why you agree the federal government should be Big Brother (The Food Police)

BVS 09-16-2010 11:11 PM

You don't get that that's an opinion column with an agenda?

You don't seem to like real news with facts.

Tell maycocksean how the food police has stopped you from eating what you want.

Please inform us.

the iron horse 09-16-2010 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 6950641)
You don't get that that's an opinion column with an agenda?

You don't seem to like real news with facts.

Tell maycocksean how the food police has stopped you from eating what you want.

Please inform us.


Please post quotes from the link that prove your point.

And maycocksean,

The federal government has banned butter, whole milk, and limited salt in public schools lunches.

The result the past twenty years:
More obesity.

It's not the food stupid!
(sorry, just taking a President Clinton phrase)

maycocksean 09-16-2010 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950618)
Snarky?

I have to do better?

Did you actually read the article?

Please quote from the article and state why you agree the federal government should be Big Brother (The Food Police)


I did read the article, and yes it was snarky. Let me ask, did you read the full text of Michelle Obama's speech. Perhaps you could quote from her speech and show were she is advocating that the federal government should be the Food Police. Because from my reading all I'm gathering is that she's encouraging a group of private business owners to make healthier meals a higher priority. It sounds mainly like "raising awareness" to me. She's about a government takeover of our dietary choices as Laura Bush was about a big-government mandate that all children be forced to learn to read.

BVS 09-16-2010 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950653)
Please post quotes from the link that prove your point.

And maycocksean,

The federal government has banned butter, whole milk, and limited salt in public schools lunches.

The result the past twenty years:
More obesity.

It's not the food stupid!
(sorry, just taking a President Clinton phrase)

You're a school teacher, when your student presents you with a paper that states that the nazis were right and that pumpkins are purple do you accept it when the student says "well show me where in my paper I was wrong"?

The federal government has banned butter, milk, and limited salt in public school lunches?

Please show me this? Who? Where?

Is this what being libertarian is about?

Moonlit_Angel 09-17-2010 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950458)
My thoughts on her victory were not about her, but about the principles of less big government, more liberty that she say she supports.

And you honest to God think she will follow that belief? You truly believe that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950458)
If she's like me, she is far from perfect and flawed.

Imperfect and flawed isn't a bad thing in and of itself, that's fine. I don't expect any politician to be perfect. Which is why I get irritated when they act like they are, and it seems to me that that's how she's trying to present herself.

I'm sorry, I don't see how or why you can support someone who feels the need to go around presuming and making rumors about other people's sexuality, who feels the need to make something so private her business. That is NOT supporting more liberty and less government. Not even close. And the rumor mill she likes to go on is just mean-spirited. I don't want a mean-spirited person running any aspect of government. We have way too many of those kinds of people in our government now, that's why we're having difficulty getting anything good done.

From the article about her:

Quote:

"You know what got me? She's down to Earth. She's on the street. She's been there,"
Aren't we done with the "they're just like us, they're down to earth" thing yet? Of course I want a leader who will genuinely understand what people such as myself are going through, but I'm sorry, they have to have some sort of exceptional quality to be a leader, some special ability that makes them stand out. We tried the whole, "Someone who we could have a beer with" idea. Remember how well that turned out?

From what I've heard about her, I can't relate to her. The fact that she beat out a conservative who can claim this:

Quote:

But he broke often with the Republican president, including a highly-publicized 2005 fight with the administration and GOP congressional leaders over federal funding for stem-cell research.
and this:

Quote:

He opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
is very sad to me. Sure, there's other issues I noticed with the link about Castle that I would disagree with him on, namely the Iraq war, it seems, but there are areas where I could agree with him, too. Don't we want that? Don't we need that? Sean hit the nail on the head here, I could not agree with you more :up:.

On a much lighter note, in relation to O'Donnell, I absolutely loved this bit from Stephen Colbert's show last night-how he managed to keep an overall straight face during this, I do not know:

Libertea - The Colbert Report - 9/15/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

"Hello, stranger!" :lmao:

Angela

PhilsFan 09-17-2010 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6950578)
Buzz word and the the sheep will follow?

So, I'm falling right in line?

Who are the blind sheep here?

I guess it's me or is it?

I don't know, I'm just the stupid libertarian:wave

If you just take someone who says "libertarian" as being a libertarian at face value without actually studying her views, then you are falling in line.

martha 09-17-2010 07:38 AM

I'm impressed that IH has returned and engaged in something like a dialogue about something he posted.

deep 09-17-2010 02:44 PM

Quote:

Democrat Chris Coons has a sizable lead over Republican Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate race, according to the results of a Rasmussen Reports poll released on Thursday, with the news likely to add to GOP concerns about O'Donnell's viability in the general election after her upset primary win.
The poll showed that 53 percent of likely Delaware voters said they would vote for Coons compared to the 42 percent that said they would for O'Donnell. Another 4 percent are undecided and 1 percent prefer another candidate.

Only an 11 point lead?

Coons should just conceed right now.

UberBeaver 09-17-2010 03:12 PM

.

GirlsAloudFan 09-17-2010 07:51 PM

O'Donnell is pretty hot, though.

BVS 09-17-2010 08:33 PM

Even Karl Rove called her a nut...

:lol:

BVS 09-17-2010 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deep (Post 6951295)

Coons should just conceed right now.

He better, if not they're going to ban bacon and cheez wiz from the school lunches.

What next? Can we please think of the children.

Pearl 09-17-2010 09:13 PM

Here's more info on her. While reading this, I wondered if she is really batshit insane or is pretending to be one just to get attention.

https://thinkprogress.org/christine-odonnell-record/

Moonlit_Angel 09-18-2010 03:04 AM

I could very well see it being the latter, because some of those positions are just so out there that you'd almost have to think it's a farce (and if it is, okay, haha, cute, joke's over now, time to get back to being serious. You're not a comedian, you're running to take a place in government).

On the other hand, though, there are people out there who genuinely do think like she does. And if she truly thinks this way, she gives Sarah Palin a run for her money-good lord, some of those viewpoints :crack: :coocoo:. If she's THAT paranoid and strict and uptight, one wonders why she even bothers to leave her house. Sounds like, according to her, society's just one big cesspool of horrors waiting to be unleashed, waiting to corrupt her oh-so-pure soul (and now you just know there's gotta be some "sin" in her past).

My favorite bit in that link was her comment that homosexuals are allowed to get away with nudity more often. WTF? Yeah, 'cause I'm seeing so much of it all over the place :huh:.

Angela

anitram 09-18-2010 10:58 AM

I don't understand how any sentient being could vote for someone like Christine O'Donnell. I mean, this, for example:

Quote:

O`DONNELL: The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So, you can`t masturbate without lust.

The reason that you don`t tell them that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because, again, it is not addressing the issue. You`re going to be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am in the picture?"
You have a 41-year-old woman who swore to celibacy at some point in college and who doesn't masturbate instructing the rest of us on sex. I mean really it's akin to Catholic priests who give those marriage classes about natural birth control to couples about to get married in the Church. Absurd.

MrsSpringsteen 09-19-2010 10:13 AM

She comes across as someone who is really trying a bit too hard to make her life seem interesting. My first date was on a Satanic altar too after a movie but I don't feel the need to go around bragging about it. She was Twilight before Twilight was cool.

(CNN) – Newly-minted Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell – who already has had to contend with a string of controversial statements she has made in the past – once said she “dabbled into witchcraft.”

The latest eyebrow-raising comment was revealed Friday by liberal comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, who, as host of the now-canceled show “Politically Incorrect,” had O’Donnell on his program several times as a guest.

“I dabbled into witchcraft - I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. ... I dabbled into witchcraft,” O’Donnell said during a 1999 appearance on the show, which ran from 1994-2002 on ABC. “I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do.”

She then described one of her first dates – with a witch “on a satanic altar.”

“I didn't know it,” she said. “I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

Maher showed the clip Friday on his HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and pledged to unveil additional clips every week if O’Donnell does not appear on his current show.

A spokesman for the O’Donnell campaign did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

martha 09-19-2010 10:39 AM

Good gravy. This nut is the poster girl for libertarianism?

corianderstem 09-19-2010 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen (Post 6953668)
My first date was on a Satanic altar too after a movie but I don't feel the need to go around bragging about it.

:lol:

Kieran McConville 09-19-2010 08:55 PM

I have long formed the view that (although he can correct me if I'm wrong) Iron Horse's libertarianism is really just knee-jerk old-timey conservatism/populism. If it seems vaguely rightwing in a way that grandpa walton might be down with, then it gets a tick.

the iron horse 09-21-2010 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville (Post 6954450)
I have long formed the view that (although he can correct me if I'm wrong) Iron Horse's libertarianism is really just knee-jerk old-timey conservatism/populism. If it seems vaguely rightwing in a way that grandpa walton might be down with, then it gets a tick.


Thank you so much for your summary of my poliical view on life.


I'm just getting in from feeding the pigs and checking on the chickens.


Take care all :)

BVS 09-21-2010 11:15 PM

iron horse, do you mind getting me some more information on the banned butter?

Harry Vest 09-22-2010 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 6951664)
Even Karl Rove called her a nut...

:lol:

See, that is precisely what the "left" is missing about all his nonsense...the fact that Karl Rove called her a "nut" will help get her and her ilk elected.

BVS 09-22-2010 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Vest (Post 6957751)
See, that is precisely what the "left" is missing about all his nonsense...the fact that Karl Rove called her a "nut" will help get her and her ilk elected.

You said the same thing about Palin in 08, for our sake I hope your finger on the pulse stays correct. :lol:

Please tell us, what is the "left" missing here?

deep 09-22-2010 03:16 PM

You seem to still be missing it.

Palin easily added 5+% to the McCain voters in 2008.
A McCain/ Romney ticket would have been a much bigger win for Obama.

Palin has had a great year. She has more power now than any of her detractors in 2008 ever expected her to have. They predicted she would fade away and be irrelevant. Who has had a bigger impact in the 2010 primaries?

When the GOP pick up seats in the Senate and House there will be several Palin GOPers there in place of the more pragmatic GOP centrists.

BVS 09-22-2010 03:36 PM

You seem to still be missing it.

Very few predicted Palin would be irrelevant, just unelectable.

Harry kept telling us that "we" were the reason Palin was going to be elected. He got it wrong.

Now IN CONTEXT can you tell me what I am missing?

deep 09-22-2010 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 6958521)
You seem to still be missing it.

Very few predicted Palin would be irrelevant, just unelectable.

Harry kept telling us that "we" were the reason Palin was going to be elected. He got it wrong.

Now IN CONTEXT can you tell me what I am missing?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Vest (Post 6957751)
See, that is precisely what the "left" is missing about all his nonsense...the fact that Karl Rove called her a "nut" will help get her and her ilk elected.


Harry did say get her ilk elected.

BVS 09-22-2010 04:16 PM

But how will Karl Rove saying she's a nut help her?

And what does the left not get with this?

This is the part that I'm perplexed about. Karl Rove is still respected by the far right(at least he was until he said that) even though he is "establishment"(how funny is it that this word is now the new conservative catch phrase) so I'm not sure what Harry's post was trying to get at. Maybe Harry doesn't know who Karl Rove is? :shrug: I don't know, but it was an odd statement.

UberBeaver 09-22-2010 04:33 PM

I guess he's trying to say that when even Karl Rove thinks you're out there, you must reallly be out there, and that there is a segment of the population that will then vote for her because she's so far out there. That's how I read it, and he's probably not wrong.

deep 09-22-2010 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 6958648)
But how will Karl Rove saying she's a nut help her?

And what does the left not get with this?

.




I think a lot of us use our own 'gut feelings' as a gage for what we assume the average person believes or will do. That may even be correct most of the time.

You and I probably agree on many (most) issues and vote similarly.

But, I do agree with Harry and see Palin as an 'impact' player that has the ability to affect elections. I am skeptical that she can win a national election.

But, I don't completely write it off as impossible. I also think she may have more power and influence out of office.

Elections move on small margins, Palin and the Tea Party are moving these margins quite well.

Awhile back I was saying Crist would peak in FLA and Rubio would win. Recent polls suggest that will be the case.

With Rubio, Miller, Rand Paul, and a couple of more there will be 4-5 Tea Party Senators with perhaps 58 GOP Senators, They will wield a lot of power.
It will be easy for them to get to 60 by pressuring a couple of Blue Dog Democrats worried about 2012 elections.

As for Rove, the Tea Party types don't respect him or Bush at all. Top of their list is Government spending and they blame Bush and Rove for putting Obama in office because of their deficit spending.

BVS 09-22-2010 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deep (Post 6958707)
As for Rove, the Tea Party types don't respect him or Bush at all. Top of their list is Government spending and they blame Bush and Rove for putting Obama in office because of their deficit spending.

I'm just going by the fact that the three major AM guys still often have him on their shows and never speak out against him.

deep 09-22-2010 05:04 PM

I don't think O'Donnell will win in Delaware. It will be interesting to see how close the election will be. Anything less than 10 points would be surprising.

The Tea Party has thrown over-board several 'establishment GOP' candidates in the primaries this year. Rove has backed many of the losers.

Rove has been heckled and harassed on his book-signing tour. He has canceled some of his stops.

Rove is on TV because of his association with Bush.
Dick Morris has made a career out of his past association with Clinton.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com