OT ~ Christine O'Donnell, Tea Party Insurgent, Stuns Mike Castle in Delaware
JanO...@aol.com
Delaware
http://tinyurl.com/23bgtc5
Here's the announcment from the Tea Party Express:
THANK YOU SO MUCH! READ BELOW FOR DETAILS
The Atlantic reports today that "Tea Party Express Figures to Make
Good On Its Pledge" - detailing how we once again managed to deliver
on our promised expenditures to support a constitutional conservative
for office. Because of your support he cites a new factor in
electoral politics: "The Tea Party Express Uncertainty Principle"
because we've surprised the establishment time and again. And the
thanks for these successes all go to you. The complete article is
below.
But it gets better. The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne wrote a column
today citing a conversation he had with none other than Liberal RINO
Mike Castle. And here's what Mike Castle had to say about all of you
- and all of us on the Tea Party Express team:
Castle, at least, is not in the least bit complacent. “The Tea Party
Express, which claims it’s not a political party, is in reality a
pretty good political operation,” he said in an interview last night.
“This is a more sophisticated political operation than they’ve been
given credit for.”
And now here's the report from The Atlantic's Chris Good. .
Tea Party Express Figures to Make Good on Its Pledge
Sep 14 2010, 4:57 PM ET |
The Delaware Senate race has seen its ups and downs. The words
"Delaware Republican primary" hadn't really entered the consciousness
of anyone outside the state as of two weeks ago, and now it's become
one of the bigger election stories of the summer.
That's because just two weeks ahead of today's primary, back-bench
candidate Christine O'Donnell was endorsed by Tea Party Express--the
group that poured hundreds of thousands of Tea Party-donated dollars
into Nevada and Alaska to deliver two big election upsets this year--
which pledged to spend $250,000 on her behalf. After that, all Hell
broke loose.
It was suddenly understood that this race might be competitive, but no
one seemed to know for sure. Call it the Tea Party Express Uncertainty
Principle: once the group got involved in the race, observers had to
assume that anything could happen.
O'Donnell's opponents began pushing out waves of negative information
on her, having learned from the mistakes of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the
Republican incumbent shockingly taken down just a week beforehand by
attorney Joe Miller. Tea Party Express had delivered that victory as
Murkowski was caught flat-footed. Not Castle. His campaign allies
became a fire hydrant of bad stuff about O'Donnell. A source with the
Delaware GOP told me she was basically unfit to serve in any office.
Lots of people had bad things to say about her.
After much of that information and commentary made its way to the
press, observers wondered if Tea Party Express had bitten off more
than it could chew, and if the group was about to throw away $250,000
for no good reason in particular on a candidate who couldn't win. No
other conservative groups got involved in this race--not the Club for
Growth, not the Senate Conservatives Fund--so it really was just Tea
Party Express running this race on their own. The reasons those other
groups had shied away appeared self evident. It would have been wise,
it seemed, for Tea Party Express to maybe, well, not spend all of that
$250,000. After all, no one could make them...
But on primary day, the Tea Party Express Uncertainty Principle is
alive and kicking. Earlier this week, Public Policy Polling showed
O'Donnell leading by three percentage points. There's been a dearth of
polling on this race, but PPP has been on the money in a few Senate
primaries this year.
At this point, the group figures to spend all of that $250,000. As of
its last disclosure with the Federal Election Commission on Saturday,
it had spent just over $215,000, leaving ample room to meet or surpass
its pledge by the end of today.
It's also attracted the endorsements of two conservative stars, Sarah
Palin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who offered their backing on
Thursday and Friday of last week. Palin, for her part, has recorded a
robocall and radio ad for O'Donnell's campaign.
So Tea Party Express, assuming it hasn't cut off its spending in the
final days of the campaign, has made good on its pledge of backing
O'Donnell and, depending on the results, will likely succeed in its
goal of making both Republicans and Democrats fear the anti-spending,
anti-tax, anti-Obama power of the disgruntled right. Based solely on
the PPP poll result, I suspect this election has already put the fear
into many.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will post more information in another post here where we can discuss
WHY the Tea Party Express is not just going up against the Democrat
Establishment but also the Republican Establihsment that will whore
itself and run a RINO that is NO improvement to the conservative cause
and in the long run will just drag the Republican Party back into the
mire.
This effort is now truly Grassroots Rebellion against the same old
pigs made up with lipstick to continue with business as usual. That
flawed CRAP is no longer acceptable. Many want the Republican Party
fixed. So why would we settle for more of the same? It's for sure
time. But let's do it as right as we can NOW.
Jan Eric Orme
JanO...@aol.com
earlier today before the polls closed and the vote was sratted:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 14, 2010
CONTACT: Levi Russell at (509) 979-6615 or via email at:
Le...@FrontLineStrat.com
Tea Party Express Issues Election Day Statement on Delaware U.S.
Senate Race
(WILMINGTON) -- The Tea Party Express issued the following statement
today regarding the U.S. Senate race in Delaware:
"As voters head to the polls in Delaware today, the news media and
many in the political establishment have sought to cast tonight's
election returns as a lose-lose proposition for the tea party
movement.
"If Conservative Republican Christine O'Donnell wins, the news media
and political elite insist that this will be a loss for the Tea Party
movement, as it will surely mean a win for the Democrats in November,
and increase their chances for retaining a majority in the U.S.
Senate.
"But wait, if Liberal RINO Mike Castle wins, the news media and
political elite similarly insist that this will be a loss for the Tea
Party movement, as it will mean the establishment has defeated the Tea
Party-backed candidate.
"So under the logic of those in the media and the political
establishment, the Tea Party movement loses either way. Nice try, but
we at the Tea Party Express aren't buying this narrative.
"The Tea Party Express, Gov. Sarah Palin, the Independence Hall Tea
Party PAC, and Diamond State Tea Party all endorsed Christine
O'Donnell because she best represented the principles important to the
Tea Party movement: limited government and a return to the
constitutional principles this country was founded on, but which our
political leaders have increasingly strayed from.
"It used to be the accepted notion that primaries were about allowing
voters in a political party to support the best candidate who
represented the members of that party. Now, however, we're told
voters are stupid if they don't instead play the role of political
strategist and support candidates based on a political chess game,
regardless of their principles.
"We here at the Tea Party Express trust the voters to follow their
hearts and to stick to their principles and beliefs. When Ronald
Reagan waged his campaign for president in the 1980 election cycle,
the same political elitists and journalists who are deriding Christine
O'Donnell as 'unelectable' similarly sneered that an 'extremist' like
Reagan could never be elected. As a result, John Anderson from
Illinois was egged on to offer a more 'reasonable' choice in the
general election campaign. Reagan won, Anderson and Jimmy Carter
lost, and the political elite and journalists had egg on their faces.
"Supporting the most liberal Republican Member of Congress, Mike
Castle, is not a viable option for constitutional conservatives.
Those who have urged support for Castle do so from the most crass and
soulless political calculation where principles are irrelevant, as it
is a zero sum gain.
"We've tried this route of electing Republicans to government who
didn't believe in their own party's platform, when we had a Republican
Congress and a Republican in the White House. What we got was massive
spending, higher deficits, bailouts, and a significant increase in the
size, scope, and power of the government.
"We here in Tea Party movement are trying to change the nature of our
leaders in Washington, and that means dumping failed and corrupt
politicians like Mike Castle who trade their votes based on the
campaign contributions of well-heeled lobbyists or the arm twisting of
political party leaders. This is the very reason Mike Castle has
attempted to hold at least four positions on ObamaCare - because at
each time his primary concern was not what was good for this nation,
but what was good for Mike Castle's political ambitions.
"When term-limited Governor Castle wanted to prolong his career
feeding off the public trough, and remaining a member of the ruling
class, he orchestrated 'The Switch' with Democrat Congressman Tom
Carper that would allow both of them to retain their political power.
It was all about their egos and their power, and the same motivation
for Mike Castle continues to this day.
"Mike Castle and his political henchmen continue this crass and
shameless behavior to this day. This year, the Delaware GOP
establishment - led by Mike Castle's closest allies and advocates -
deliberately chose to not field a Republican candidate for Attorney
General in the state of Delaware. Why? Because the Democrat Attorney
General is a man named Beau Biden, who happens to be the son of
Democrat Vice President, Joe Biden.
"But don't worry say Castle's Republican supporters. If he wins the
GOP nomination for U.S. Senate in Delaware we're supposed to expect
him to suddenly become some kind of Republican loyalist, helping to
advance a conservative revolution in Congress.
"We here at the Tea Party Express don't buy that for one minute.
Whether it means switching political parties, or voting with the
Democrats on more bailouts, Cap & Trade, or for liberal judicial
activists for the U.S. Supreme Court, Mike Castle will play to the
same political puppet masters he always has, and that's not to
Republicans, conservatives, or his constituents.
"The Tea Party Express has won nearly every election it has played an
active role in. Today, the voters of Delaware will decide whether to
support the Tea Party Express-backed candidate, Christine O'Donnell.
If they do, that will be a victory for the Tea Party movement, no
matter how many pundits or journalists try and argue otherwise.
"The next step is to fight on behalf of these Tea Party candidates in
November, and ensure that they once again defy the wishes and
predictions of the political establishment, by propelling these
constitutional conservatives to victory over their liberal Democrat,
big-government opponents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Eric Orme
Bob Hatch
And the chicken shit, cowardly NRSC is refusing to back her. I'm
starting to regret every dime I've ever given to the NRC. Idiots!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bombshell-gop-refuses-to-support-odonnell-in-general-election/
"Before Christine O‘Donnell even had a chance to deliver her remarks to
accept the Republican Party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate, the
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) announced that the
party’s fundraising organization would not be supporting the Delaware
tea party favorite in the Nov. 2 election."
--
"There are no jobs that Americans
will not do. There are jobs Americans
will not be hired for because an
illegal alien has taken it."
"Illegal Alien = Job Thief"
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
http://www.keepazsafe.com/
JanO...@aol.com
>
> "Before Christine O‘Donnell even had a chance to deliver her remarks to
> accept the Republican Party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate, the
> National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) announced that the
> party’s fundraising organization would not be supporting the Delaware
> tea party favorite in the Nov. 2 election."
It's what's SO wrong with the Washington DC Establishment regardless
of the Party. These Bastards will NOT go along with what 'We The
People' have told them RIGHT IN THE VOTING BOOTH!
Bob, I stopped giving them a "dime" a long time ago. Now, when I give
anything it sure as shit ain't gonna go through their RINO paws!
I did vote for McCain. But I ain't going down that road again. They
better come up with someone decent or they are dead meat again..
Supporting a RINO is like shooting yourself in the foot!
Jan
JanO...@aol.com
in this fight. But, it has turned out to be a very viable one.
Here is another of their Press Releases:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 14, 2010
CONTACT: Levi Russell at (509) 979-6615 or via email at:
Le...@FrontLineStrat.com
Tea Party Express Congratulates Christine O'Donnell on Stunning
Victory!
The Tea Party Express congratulates Christine O'Donnell on a stunning
victory in the Delaware Republican Primary campaign for U.S. Senate.
"Yes! Congratulations, Christine O'Donnell, you did it, and all of us
in the tea party movement are so proud of you!" said Amy Kremer,
Chairman of the Tea Party Express.
"Christine O'Donnell overcame the entire political establishment to
achieve victory tonight because she stood for the constitutional
conservative principles that voters are craving during this election
cycle.
"As recently as one-month ago everyone wrote off Christine O'Donnell,
but she defied the pundits and the political establishment. Now she
is positioned to shock the so-called political experts in November
once again.
"Christine kept her focus on the message of a return to a
constitutionally limited government. That message will resonate with
voters in November, just as strongly as it has today. If all the
kings horses and all the kings men of the political establishment
couldn't defeat Christine O'Donnell today, what makes anyone think
they will beat her in November as the Republican nominee for U.S.
Senate?
"Wake up corrupt politicians in Washington, D.C. Change is coming
like a tidal wave, sweeping across this country. It's time to call
the moving company, start packing up boxes, and look for new career
opportunities. We The People have had enough, and we've got a message
for you: You're Fired!" Kremer concluded.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Eric Orme
JanO...@aol.com
Press Release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 14, 2010
CONTACT: Levi Russell at (509) 979-6615 or via email at:
Le...@FrontLineStrat.com
Tea Party Express Celebrates Successful Primary Season
The Tea Party Express celebrated another election victory tonight,
marking the end to a very successful primary campaign season.
Below is a list of those who we’ve endorsed as ‘heroes’ or spent
money.
The Tea Party Express also targeted a number of candidates who
ultimately ended up losing/retiring. We launched a $250,000 “Defeat
Bart Stupak” campaign and brought our Tea Party Express 3-bus convoy
into his district with 6 tea party rallies in his congressional
district (the most we’ve ever held in a politician’s district).
After spending $60,000 on radio and TV ads, Stupak announced his
retirement, right while we were in the middle of a rally against him
in Escanaba, MI (in the Upper Peninsula, and again in Stupak’s
district). We announced we were targeting Arlen Specter, and produced
a TV ad for Pat Toomey, and then Specter left the GOP and then lost in
the Democrat Primary.
We also announced we were targeting Democrat Congressman Alan Mollohan
of West Virginia, and he lost too. And most notably, beyond spending
over $550,000 supporting Sharron Angle’s GOP primary campaign
(launching it when she was at just 5% in the polls), we’ve also waged
$500,000 campaign against Harry Reid and expect to spend at least
several hundred thousand dollars more to defeat him too.
Here’s our Hero’s list of the candidates we’ve endorsed – most of them
big winners:
SENATE
AK Joe Miller (R)
NV Sharron Angle (R)
DE Christine O’Donnell (R)
MA Scott Brown (R)
KY Rand Paul (R)
UT Mike Lee (R)
CA Chuck DeVore (R)
FL Marco Rubio (R)
KS Todd Tiahrt (R)
PA Pat Toomey (R)
SC Jim DeMint (R)
HOUSE
CA-4 Tom McClintock (R)
GA-6 Tom Price (R)
ID-1 Walt Minnick (D)
IN-6 Mike Pence (R)
MN-6 Michele Bachmann (R)
SC-2 Joe Wilson (R)
TN-7 Marsha Blackburn (R)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Eric Orme
JanO...@aol.com
Bob, Here is the Tea Party Express answer to the NRSC:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 14, 2010
CONTACT: Levi Russell at (509) 979-6615 or via email at:
Le...@FrontLineStrat.com
Tea Party Express Responds to NRSC
The Tea Party Express issued the following statement in response to
preliminary reports that the National Republican Senatorial Committee
would not support their own nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware:
"The National Republican Senatorial Committee has reportedly said they
will not support their own nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware. This
is a rash statement that hopefully they will reconsider once good
judgment sets in.
"The NRSC tried to meddle in the vote recount for liberal Republican
Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Now they say they aren't committed to
supporting their own nominee in Delaware? When will this insanity
stop?
"We encourage the NRSC to take a night off, get some sleep, and
reconsider their rash statements. It is because of inexcusable
conduct in Delaware and Alaska that so many conservatives have turned
to the Tea Party Express, offering their support and their donations.
These people have lost faith in the NRSC as just another big-
government, Washington, D.C.-based organization that has contributed
to the problems this country currently faces.
"If the NRSC is committed to defeating Democrats in November, then it
is time for them to honor their mission statement and do just that.
If they fail to do so, then they can expect millions of conservatives
to continue to steer their donations and volunteer hours elsewhere.
"Wake up NRSC, the reason the tea party movement has grown into such a
powerful force is because of the failures of establishment
organizations such as yours to honor the principles of the Republican
Party platform. You tried to force through the most liberal
Republican in Congress on the voters of Delaware and they rejected
you. Wake up, you are defying your own base, and will end up an
irrelevant and impotent organization that serves to only amuse the
corrupt political establishment in Washington, D.C.
"The Tea Party Express will back Christine O'Donnell in the general
election along with every other candidate we've endorsed. We trust
adults at the NRSC will come to their senses and realize that the
people have spoken, and it's time for the NRSC to represent the
Republicans it is supposed to represent."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do ya like them apples?
8^)
Jan Eric Orme
Don Lampson
cabbage, aren't they? Yesir!
I hope you conservatives give them lots of money, so they can give
the old "heave ho" to other Republicans, who won't play ball with you!
HawHawHaw!
Mr. Earl
nothermark
Strike me the NRSC is looking at the Tea leaves and sees that they
will have to convince a significant number of Republicans to vote
against their better judgement and support somebody they find as
offensive as a socialist.
will sill
<JanO...@aol.com> posted
>Christine O'Donnell, Tea Party Insurgent, Stuns Mike Castle in Delaware
http://tinyurl.com/23bgtc5
I note with astonishment that the RNC was childish/stupid enough to
immediately announce that they would NOT support O'D in the election. One
would hope they'd have had the good sense to just shut up. Instead, one
would hope that their collossal arrogance will back-fire, giving DE voters
even more motive to run the rascals out!
Will
Carl A.
You may want to direct your contributions to Jim De Mint's PAC,
https://senateconservatives.com/takeamericaback
---
Carl Ahlemeyer
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
Technobarbarian
"Don Lampson" <DonLa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27005-4C9...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
> The Tea Party Express is sure showing those RINOs how the cow eats the
> cabbage, aren't they? Yesir!
> I hope you conservatives give them lots of money, so they can give
> the old "heave ho" to other Republicans, who won't play ball with you!
LOL, money shouldn't be a problem.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tea_Party_movement_funding
"In an article in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker magazine,
author Jane Mayer links the billionaire brothers David Koch and Charles
Koch, owners of Koch Industries to tea party movement funding. Mayer writes,
The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a
political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to "educate," fund, and
organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda
into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a
historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a
Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, "The problem with the
whole libertarian movement is that it's been all chiefs and no Indians.
There haven't been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it.
So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement." With the
emergence of the Tea Party, he said, "everyone suddenly sees that for the
first time there are Indians out there-people who can provide real
ideological power." The Kochs, he said, are "trying to shape and control and
channel the populist uprising into their own policies.[1]
Reports indicate that the Tea Party Movement benefits from millions of
dollars from conservative foundations that are derived from wealthy U.S.
families and their business interests. Is appears that money to organize and
implement the Movement flows primarily through two conservative groups:
Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.
In an April 9, 2009 article on ThinkProgress.org, Lee Fang reports that the
principal organizers of Tea Party events are Americans for Prosperity and
Freedom Works, two "lobbyist-run think tanks" that are "well funded" and
that provide the logistics and organizing for the Tea Party movement from
coast to coast. Media Matters reported that David Koch of Koch Industries
was a co-founder of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), the predecessor of
FreedomWorks. David Koch was chairman of the board of directors of CSE.[2]
CSE received substantial funding from David Koch of Koch Industries, which
is the largest privately-held energy company in the country, and the
conservative Koch Family Foundations, which make substantial annual
donations to conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, etc. Media Matters
reported that the Koch family has given more than $12 million to CSE
(predecessor of FreedomWorks) between 1985 and 2002.[3][4]
Koch Industries has denied specifically funding Freedomworks or tea parties
directly, however. The company's director of communications wrote ""Koch
companies value free speech and believe it is good to have more Americans
engaged in key policy issues. That said, Koch companies, the Koch
foundations, Charles Koch and David Koch have no ties to and have never
given money to FreedomWorks. In addition, no funding has been provided by
Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch or David Koch
specifically to support the tea parties." Koch's director of communications
did affirm, however, that the company funds Americans for Prosperity (AFP).
TPM's Lee Fang reports that "AFP was founded in part by the company's
Executive Vice President, David Koch. He is currently the chairman of the
board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation." [5][6]
Media Matters also lists the Sarah Scaife Foundation as having given a total
of $2.96 million in funding to FreedomWorks.[7] The Sarah Mellon Scaife
Foundation is financed by the Mellon industrial, oil, and banking fortune.
[8]
The Claude R. Lambe Foundation, also controlled by the Koch family, has
donated more than $3 million to Americans for Prosperity. [9]"
If you have the patience for it the New Yorker article they reference
is interesting.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
A small sample:
"With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually
all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas,
whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The
company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and
the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas,
and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch
Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber,
Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the
second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its
consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch-who, years ago,
bought out two other brothers-among the richest men in America. Their
combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower
personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and
much less oversight of industry-especially environmental regulation. These
views dovetail with the brothers' corporate interests. In a study released
this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst's Political Economy
Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in
the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as
a "kingpin of climate science denial." The report showed that, from 2005 to
2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations
fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network
of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the
brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama
Administration policies-from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus
program-that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as
the Kochtopus."
TB
Lone Haranguer
> The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid
> ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related
> to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think
> tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded
> opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies-from
> health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program-that, in political
> circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus."
Someone has to be a counterweight to George Soros and his octopus of front
groups pushing the socialist agenda.
How many people do the Koch brothers employ as opposed to Soros?
Hmmmnn?
LZ
JanO...@aol.com
Linus, do you really bother to read the TB blather? To each his own, I
guess. I don't read it. Waste of time. But I find it amusing that my
posts have sent him off into another babblethon.
Jan
JanO...@aol.com
> <JanOrm...@aol.com> posted
There is already an online petition started to the dolts this morning.
Jan
Lone Haranguer
pathology index on TB current.
LZ
JanO...@aol.com
At my age (73 last week) I just don't have the patience and I find
myself as busy or busier than ever.
Jan
Lone Haranguer
Rained here nearly all day. I went to our storage garage for a while to sort
things we want to take to AZ, did some reading and shopped for vino.
The laptop is always on and I sit down from time to time to check the weather,
read my e-mails and scan RORT postings.
So I'm a busy loafer.
LZ
JerryD(upstateNY)
Yorker magazine, author Jane Mayer links the billionaire brothers David Koch
and Charles
Koch, owners of Koch Industries to tea party movement funding. Mayer
writes,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
SO WHAT ???
If they spend 100 million this year, they won't catch up with what Soros has
given the Socialists.....err.....Democrats.
I can't ever remember you mentioning how much money Soros has spent.
Why is that ?
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Bruce S
I thought it was funny that one of the sources for this smear piece was a
Soros funded propaganda unit.
Bruce
roamer
They got the word and have issued a retraction.
JanO...@aol.com
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:28:40 -0700 (PDT), "JanOrm...@aol.com"
Yep! That's what I understand. On Hannity tonight it was announced
that not only will the RSNC now throw their support to O'Donnell but
they also have already sent the maximum alowable contribution to her
campaign. "What a difference a day makes."
Makes you wonder what was said behind those old stuffy good old boy
closed doors. I suspect that when the smoke cleared this morning they
had a collective, "Oops.....look at all these petition signatures and
these comments. We mighta screwed the pooch!" I would be willing to
bet that the FAX machine and phones were jammed. Something about, "We
Are Mad As Hell And Ain't Gonna Take This Anymore." Uh......time for
an attitude adjustment. I love this!
And, she also now has an endorsement from Mitt Romney and Senator Jim
DeMint.
Then we also need to realize that there were polls not that long ago
showing that in a matchup against Coons she was the winner. Karl Rove
was argry with her win last night. But it time for the "Establishment"
old party crap to get a grip and see what's really happening here.
Bill O'Reilly seemed miffed that she didn't come on his show. And he
was blustering about how she had to stand up and answer hard questions
on TV. Well, I think he was really just pissed because she went on
Hannity instead of his show! HAR! She also appeared on a bunch of
Media Morning Shows on several networks. So, she is NOT running from
the press.
I saw the interview on Hannity. She comes across solid as hell IMHO.
Bright and solid with no fear. Answered questions well and was not at
all rude to those that have certainly been somewhat rude about her
candidacy.
So, she is off and running for the 11/2 showdown.
One more point. The Frickin' RINOs wre voting too often with the Obama/
Pelosi/Reid crowd. On 11/2 the Democrats are already talking about the
possibility of a lame duck session to RAM MORE CRAP THROUGH before the
new bunch is sworn in. In the case of Christine O'Donnell, if she wins
she get seated the next day because it is a special election for the
old Biden Seat. SO, this election could be VERY important.
Go Get 'Em Christine!
Jan
Technobarbarian
<JanO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5a73797f-5d3c-4549...@x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 9:03 am, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>> > The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid
>> > ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation
>> > related
>> > to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think
>> > tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded
>> > opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies-from
>> > health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program-that, in political
>> > circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus."
>>
>> Someone has to be a counterweight to George Soros and his octopus of
>> front
>> groups pushing the socialist agenda.
A point where we sort of agree. It is unfortunate that money has come
to speak so loudly in American politics.
>>
>> How many people do the Koch brothers employ as opposed to Soros?
>>
>> Hmmmnn?
>> LZ
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Linus, do you really bother to read the TB blather? To each his own, I
> guess. I don't read it. Waste of time. But I find it amusing that my
> posts have sent him off into another babblethon.
Aawwww, shit, where are my manners? Ok, here's the condensed version
for Jan and anyone else with a short attention span: The Tea Party is broke.
Always has been. Aaand, if they're lucky they may even stay that way. You're
at a grassroots Tea Party rally that has drawn a crowd numbered in the
hundreds. Someone pulls up in a fancy new bus with an expensive paint job
that says TEA PARTY all over it. Maybe you should ask yourself "what's going
on here?"
Ok, here's the version for the folks who aren't intellectually
challenged: Hang on it's going to be a wild ride. I'm sure all my regular
readers like Bruce and LZ and the rest will enjoy it.
The first thing I stumbled on was the masturbation tape, but I'm saving
that for last. It's a hoot When I saw that I started asking myself who in
the hell is Christine O'Donnell? One of the first things I stumbled on was
the Hannity - Carl Rove interview. This is not something I would watch, but
the transcript is entertaining. I think the quotes that are generally being
used are a bit misleading, if nothing else it gives you the wrong idea of
the tenor of the conversation.
So then, being an idiot, I went to the complete idiots source, the
wiki. I'm sure ya'll can find that if you're interested. It's a hoot too.
That led me to this website because she had been a "spokesperson" for this
group:
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/18226/CWA/misc/index.htm
"Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the nation's largest public policy
women's organization with a rich 30-year history of helping our members
across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public
policy. There's a cultural battle raging across this country and CWA is on
the frontline protecting those values through prayer and action.
We focus on six core issues: the family, the sanctity of human life,
religious liberty, education, pornography and national sovereignty.
Click here to read a wonderful article about our organization published by
The Christian Examiner, titled "Beverly LaHaye marks three decades of
promoting traditional values through CWA."
When the Liberals want to say that Conservatives are trying to impose
their religion on the rest of us Christine O'Donnell is one of the people
they'll use as an example.
And I wanted to know if Carl was right. Is it really as bad as he
thinks it is? Probably, even Rasmussen shows her losing at this point. Carl
seems to be a bit pissed because this was a seat in the Senate that the
Republicans had a chance to pick up:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/de/delaware_senate_oadonnell_vs_coons-1670.html
Naturally by now I'm wondering who's funding a nutcase like this.
These days with PACs and foundations and corporations being treated like
they're people it has become harder to track the money. I think the
Republicans may be a bit more miffed about the money than Carl let on with
Hannity.
The Atlantic Home
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Delaware GOP Calls Tea Party Express's Fundraising Approach Illegal
Sep 9 2010, 5:45 PM ET | Comment
The Delaware GOP, which is supporting Congressman Mike Castle in the state's
senate primary, has alleged that the campaign of Christine O'Donnell and the
group Tea Party Express have engaged in illegal campaign activity.
You can read the group's 27-page complaint to the Federal Election
Commission here: Delaware GOP complaint.pdf
The complaint rests on a few points.
One is that Tea Party Express and the O'Donnell campaign have engaged in
message coordination, which is barred under federal election law.
Third-party groups are generally not allowed to coordinate their messages
with campaigns. (Democratic groups, for instance, couldn't call the Obama
campaign in 2008 and ask, "Hey, so what should we say in our ads?")
Another is that Tea Party Express solicited earmarked donations to the
O'Donnell campaign, and that this is illegal. This calls into question the
entire strategy Tea Party Express employs in elections across the country
The group sends out many e-mail fundraising requests, and the ones I've seen
have consisted of the basic pitch: give us money so we can support Christine
O'Donnell. The Delaware GOP quotes elections regulations as saying that
earmarked donations are basically illegal.
If the intermediary or the conduit exercises any direction or control
over the choice of the recipient candidate, however, the contributions are
treated as contributions from both the original contributor and from the
intermediary of conduit to the recipient candidate...Commission regulations
define "earmarked" as "a designation, instruction, or encumbrance, whether
direct or indirect, express or implied, oral or written, which results in
all or any part of a contribution or expenditure being made to, or expended
on behalf of, a clearly identified candidate or candidate's authorized
committee."
The Delaware GOP is arguing that Tea Party Express, by soliciting donations
earmarked to be spent (by the group) in support of O'Donnell, has donated
more to her campaign than the $5,000 it is legally allowed to give her per
election.
Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell responds, saying he doesn't think
the group has gone over the $5,000 limit in direct donations.
[snip]
Then you starting asking yourself. The Tea Party is broke? The Tea
Party Express has lots of money? Huh?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40800.html
"Some leading tea party activists are concerned that their efforts to
reshape American politics, starting with the 2010 elections, are being
undermined by a shortage of cash that's partly the result of a deep
ambivalence within the movement's grass roots over the very idea of
fundraising and partly attributable to an inability to win over the wealthy
donors who fund the conservative establishment.
Many tea party organizations have shied away from the heavy-handed
solicitations that flood the e-mail boxes of political activists. And the
handful of tea party groups that have raised substantial amounts, either by
embracing aggressive fundraising or through pre-existing connections to
wealthy donors, are viewed suspiciously within the movement.
Local groups have been left to literally pass hats seeking donations at
their meetings or rely on their organizers' bank accounts, while some
national groups have failed to live up to their bold fundraising
predictions.
"I don't blame them, since most of these people are so new to the process,
and they don't know anything beyond the protests, but at the end of the day,
the energy and the passion will only take you so far," said Ned Ryun,
president of American Majority, a nonprofit group that teaches grass-roots
conservative activists how to influence the political process. "Without
money, nothing quite works like it could."
Last spring, American Majority organized a series of summits across the
country to train local tea party activists on how to organize and raise
money to influence elections.
"We've been challenging them to start building what I call privatized
political infrastructure to play in primaries and actually change the
system," Ryun said. "If it doesn't start shifting, the tea party is going to
be a flash in the pan."
The movement's money problems suggest what may be the tea party's central
paradox - that the very anti-establishment sentiment that spawned it may
keep it from having the resources it needs to become a sustainable political
force.
Many of the newly engaged activists who joined the movement regard
traditional political fundraising as representative of the corrupt politics
they abhor.
"When you start chasing the money, you start having to compromise, and that's
where a lot of D.C. organizations go wrong," said Everett Wilkinson, a South
Florida financial adviser who runs two of the biggest tea party groups in
Florida. "If we stay trim and we keep our overhead small, we won't have to
raise a lot of money and we won't have to compromise. No one owns us."
This article has lots of fun info on just how broke the Tea Party is.
You sort of get down to the answer to the question further down in the
article:
Some of the biggest foundations behind the conservative movement - Koch and
Bradley - have signaled their wariness about affiliating with the tea party,
even as Koch doles out hundreds of thousands - and likely millions - of
dollars to one of the main Washington nonprofit groups assisting tea
partiers around the country: Americans for Prosperity, which was founded by
the family's most politically active member, David Koch.
On the eve of the April 15 Tax Day tea party rallies in Washington, a
spokeswoman for the various Koch foundations and companies issued a
statement distancing the Kochs from the tea parties and another major
Washington-based movement organizer, FreedomWorks, which was formed after a
2003 rift within a Koch-funded predecessor group that also yielded Americans
for Prosperity.
According to Koch spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia, "no funding has been provided
by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch or David Koch
specifically to support the tea parties."
Nor have any Koch interests contributed to Tea Party Patriots or a number of
other prominent tea party groups, Cohlmia later told POLITICO.
Likewise, the president of the Lynde and Henry Bradley Foundation, which
grant reports show has contributed $195,000 to Americans for Prosperity and
$270,000 to FreedomWorks between the time of their split and the end of last
year, said his group's focus will remain on policy research and development,
rather than grass-roots mobilization.
"We are not directly funding their tea party activities," foundation
P-resident Mike Grebe told POLITICO. "We're funding public education
programs run by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, both of which are
very active in the tea party movement, but our monitoring of that would be
indirectly, as opposed to having direct contacts with tea party people."
The Koch brothers are just funding education programs to massage the
Tea Party. They wouldn't want to directly fund the rabble or be seen with
them. Who knows what they would do if they had money.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the masturbation tape. I'm sure everyone will
gets lots of opportunities to see this between now and the election:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/09/christine_odonnell_thinks_mast.html
TB
Lone Haranguer
These
> days with PACs and foundations and corporations being treated like
> they're people it has become harder to track the money.
Obama's slush fund with all those anonymous donors certainly proved that point.
I suspect that 75% of Obama's cash came from illegal funding.
LZ
Technobarbarian
<JanO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:078cd01c-5e1b-4a2e...@t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Phew, what a relief. I try to keep track but the crazy person is always
the last to know. As nutty as the dialog gets to be here RORT could easily
be an early version of what happened to Russell Crowe's character in "A
Beautiful Mind."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_%28film%29
TB
Bruce S
>
> And I wanted to know if Carl was right. Is it really as bad as he
> thinks it is? Probably, even Rasmussen shows her losing at this
> point. Carl seems to be a bit pissed because this was a seat in the
> Senate that the Republicans had a chance to pick up:
I'll bet that by the end of the month she is less than 10 points down (down
18 right now) and by election day, she is within the margin of error for
whatever poll you can cite. If you will remember back a few weeks, you were
posting all the polling info about how bad Angle was doing in Nevada, and
how she was a sure loss when the Republicans could have picked a sure
winner. (as I recall she was down 16) Well, as of today, Angle is one
point ahead and getting stronger every day. I see no reason O'Donnell
cannot have the same results.
> Naturally by now I'm wondering who's funding a nutcase like this.
> These days with PACs and foundations and corporations being treated
> like they're people it has become harder to track the money. I think
> the Republicans may be a bit more miffed about the money than Carl
> let on with Hannity.
By the way, the Republican Senate Committee donated the max they are allowed
to her campaign. Oh, and her campaign received over half a million in
donations today.
And as to the masturbation tape, without watching it, I suspect it is no
more meaningful than the Dems claiming that Angle wanted to set up massage
parlors for prison inmates. Complete crap taken out of context. Based on
the campaign against Angle the dems campaign ads will be full of BS about
how "extreme" she is. As if wanting to reduce the size of the federal
government is extreme.
Bruce
bill horne
Well damn, Bruce. To the Dems it *is* extreme.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Bruce S
Too true, unfortunately
Bruce
Technobarbarian
"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c9196b9$0$17912$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>
>> And I wanted to know if Carl was right. Is it really as bad as he
>> thinks it is? Probably, even Rasmussen shows her losing at this
>> point. Carl seems to be a bit pissed because this was a seat in the
>> Senate that the Republicans had a chance to pick up:
>
> I'll bet that by the end of the month she is less than 10 points down
> (down 18 right now) and by election day, she is within the margin of error
> for whatever poll you can cite. If you will remember back a few weeks,
> you were posting all the polling info about how bad Angle was doing in
> Nevada, and how she was a sure loss when the Republicans could have picked
> a sure winner. (as I recall she was down 16) Well, as of today, Angle is
> one point ahead and getting stronger every day. I see no reason O'Donnell
> cannot have the same results.
I guess it depends on what poll you want to believe. The RCP average
shows Reid slightly ahead.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_angle_vs_reid-1517.html
This should have been an easy one. The people of Nevada *want* to
fire Reid. Angle saved him from being the Senator most likely to be fired.
>
>> Naturally by now I'm wondering who's funding a nutcase like this.
>> These days with PACs and foundations and corporations being treated
>> like they're people it has become harder to track the money. I think
>> the Republicans may be a bit more miffed about the money than Carl
>> let on with Hannity.
>
> By the way, the Republican Senate Committee donated the max they are
> allowed to her campaign. Oh, and her campaign received over half a
> million in donations today.
Of course, and I expect she'll do even better than that in the coming
weeks.
>
> And as to the masturbation tape, without watching it, I suspect it is no
> more meaningful than the Dems claiming that Angle wanted to set up massage
> parlors for prison inmates. Complete crap taken out of context. Based on
> the campaign against Angle the dems campaign ads will be full of BS about
> how "extreme" she is. As if wanting to reduce the size of the federal
> government is extreme.
There is no actual masturbation. O'Donnell and some other people talk
about masturbation in a tape that she made for television. They were against
it. I don't know how she feels about it now, but she appeared to be very
proud of it when she made it. As Carl Rove noted and the Wiki touched on,
she'll have some questions to answer in the coming weeks. LQTM
TB
nothermark
talk about mental defectives....
roamer
Right on right on!
JerryD(upstateNY)
challenged: Hang on it's going to be a wild ride. I'm sure all my regular
readers like Bruce and LZ and the rest will enjoy it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Did anyone else notice that not once did TB argue with O'Donnell's plans,
ideas, etc.
He can't, so all he he can do is to try to tear her down.
Typical.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Lone Haranguer
Nash's life."
How much is "considerably"? Enough to make it fiction.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Smearing is the biggest shell in the Democrat's arsenal and one you can count
on them to use.
LZ
David "The Hamster" Malone
> And as to the masturbation tape, without watching it,
You should watch it... it's hilarious. I showed it to my wife last
night and she thought it was a Saturday Night Live skit...
David "The Hamster" Malone
roamer
We have a morning talk show host (Barry Young) and I generally agree
w/him. When he is out (a regular occurrence) we are blessed with a
blithering idiot named Barry Markson. He is a lawyer in Phoenix and
while he claims to be conservative, his talk is far left. He denies
it, of course, but only a boob would agree. He has been on this
morning and he has said Christine CAN'T win no way, no how! I think
he is forgetting that last Monday the same pundits HE represents were
saying the same thing about the primary election. It is time for us
to exercise our principles. BTW, the voting dems are sooo dispirited
by what is happening that I bet the dem turnout is low and conversely,
the Republican turnout will be high.
We need to get rid of the beltway clique who are all varying shades of
dem.
JanO...@aol.com
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:50:36 -0700 (PDT), "JanOrm...@aol.com"
Exactly! If we want conservative principles and values with leaders
that will actually vote with the Constitution in mind.....why would we
elect some dim bulb that votes otherwise? This old saw of lesser of
two evils has to stop. It's time to clean house all the way to the
bottom of the grime.
Jan Eric Orme
Carl A.
It's happening. Just heard on the radio that she raised close to $1
Million in contributions in the last 24 hours. At that rate, she'll be
able to outspend her opponents.
--
Carl Ahlemeyer
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
roamer
<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The first thing I stumbled on was the masturbation tape, but I'm saving
>that for last. It's a hoot When I saw that I started asking myself who in
>the hell is Christine O'Donnell? One of the first things I stumbled on was
>the Hannity - Carl Rove interview. This is not something I would watch, but
>the transcript is entertaining. I think the quotes that are generally being
>used are a bit misleading, if nothing else it gives you the wrong idea of
>the tenor of the conversation.
I couldn't care less what her religious views are. I don't believe
there is a Secretary of Masturbation or a department of religion.
Lone Haranguer
Unfortunately many have the scruples of Charlie Rangel but too smart to get
caught.
LZ
Hunter Hampton
Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>You should watch it... it's hilarious. I showed it to my wife last
>night and she thought it was a Saturday Night Live skit...
>
>David "The Hamster" Malone
Just what we need a moron who thinks masturbating is a "sin"
Where do these people come from?
Hunter
John Kinney
Not so much a wild ride as a near-certain trainwreck emerging from the fog...
Regards, John Kinney
Don Lampson
operating on "Biblical Principles"! Whoo-wee!
Is Christine O'Donnell any relation to "Rosie"? HawHawHaw!
Brother Don
Bruce S
> Just what Delaware needs, a nutcase who wants to have government
> operating on "Biblical Principles"! Whoo-wee!
> Is Christine O'Donnell any relation to "Rosie"? HawHawHaw!
> Brother Don
And which Biblical principles would you be opposed to? Integrity? Not
stealing? Good morals? Do unto others?
Bruce
Technobarbarian
"Technobarbarian" <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i6s0pt$h6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Aawwww, shit, where are my manners? Ok, here's the condensed version
> for Jan and anyone else with a short attention span: The Tea Party is
> broke. Always has been. Aaand, if they're lucky they may even stay that
> way. You're at a grassroots Tea Party rally that has drawn a crowd
> numbered in the hundreds. Someone pulls up in a fancy new bus with an
> expensive paint job that says TEA PARTY all over it. Maybe you should ask
> yourself "what's going on here?"
I have a short postscript to this that even Jan might be able to
figure out.
"NRSC officials say that if O'Donnell proves she is viable as a candidate in
what is considered to be a blue state, "we would hope Sen. Jim DeMint and
the Tea Party Express would invest in her race." If that happens, the NRSC
would consider spending for O'Donnell.
The Tea Party Express hit back, calling it a "rash" decision and reminding
supporters the NRSC attempted to help Sen. Lisa Murkowski during a close
vote in the Alaska Senate primary she lost last month.
"It is because of inexcusable conduct in Delaware and Alaska that so many
conservatives have turned to the Tea Party Express, offering their support
and their donations," Tea Party Express officials told reporters. "These
people have lost faith in the NRSC as just another big-government,
Washington, D.C.-based organization that has contributed to the problems
this country currently faces.""
It almost doesn't matter what they were saying. The interesting thing
is that if I didn't know better I would think this was *the Tea Party*
speaking. Those people aren't even part of the Tea Party. They're supposedly
an "educational" organization. As I understand what the Tea Party is
supposed to be it's a grassroots organization that I can join and have a
voice in. You can't join the Tea Party Express and only their elite have a
voice in it.
Folks who think the Tea Party Express is any part of the Tea Party
might want to look at the parent company's website.
http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/get-involved/
You can: contribute, sign petitions, "connect online", sign up for
their already large mailing list, some of which they bought like anyone else
going into business; but, you cannot join or vote.
TB
TB
TB
Bruce S
> "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:i6s0pt$h6l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Aawwww, shit, where are my manners? Ok, here's the condensed
>> version for Jan and anyone else with a short attention span: The Tea
>> Party is broke. Always has been. Aaand, if they're lucky they may
>> even stay that way. You're at a grassroots Tea Party rally that has
>> drawn a crowd numbered in the hundreds. Someone pulls up in a fancy
>> new bus with an expensive paint job that says TEA PARTY all over it.
>> Maybe you should ask yourself "what's going on here?"
>
> I have a short postscript to this that even Jan might be able
> to figure out.
>
> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/national-gop-looks-west-nrsc-washing-hands-of-delaware-after-christine-odonnell-win.php
>
> "NRSC officials say that if O'Donnell proves she is viable as a
> candidate in what is considered to be a blue state, "we would hope
> Sen. Jim DeMint and the Tea Party Express would invest in her race."
> If that happens, the NRSC would consider spending for O'Donnell.
Maybe you weren't paying attention, but the NRSC sent the maximum amount to
Ms O'Donnell about 12 hours after that story was posted.
Bruce
Don Lampson
Do you believe only those who operate on "Biblical Principles" believe
in "integrity, not stealing, good morals, and do unto others?
Have you ever heard of Jim & Tammy Baker, and several other phony
baloney Christians, who also made a big deal out of how they were
guided by their religion? I don't trust people who bray about their
piety!
Is the Catholic Church paying out millions of dollars to victims all
over the world, for operating on "Biblical Principles"?
Do you think the government can do a better job with "Biblical
Principles", than the Catholic Church?
Mr. Inquisitor
Technobarbarian
"Hunter Hampton" <airstrea...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:jk65961iqfou7up5f...@4ax.com...
Christine O'Donnell is a gift that just keeps giving. Someone was
complaining because I wasn't talking about her ideas. Here's another fun one
that I think speaks for itself:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311946,00.html
"CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I see this as - by their own
admission, the group that clones the monkey, they proudly stated that this
is what's going to lead them to human cloning.
And if we don't dismiss it at the real point of that. I mean, we can't
dismiss it. The real point of all of this research is to lead to human
cloning. So at the very core of the debate about human cloning is dignity
versus commodity
.
O'REILLY: Yes, but you're going the slippery slope now. You know, the
slippery slope. I know, I know, look. They can clone humans now if they
wanted to.
O'DONNELL: It's by their own admission. It's by their own admission that
they're...
O'REILLY: Everybody knows that scientists have enough knowledge to clone a
human being if they wanted to."
[snip]
"O'DONNELL: ... these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay,
we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have
to keep...
O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in
the United States unless all craziness is going on.
O'DONNELL: They are - they are doing that here in the United States.
American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and
coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already
into this experiment.
O'REILLY: Alright. Doctor...
MORRONE: That's an exaggeration."
OTOH:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/christine-odonnell-lesbian-gay-sister-jennie
"Imagine the family dinners: two sisters, one running for Senate as an
anti-gay Christian conservative, the other an L.A.-based
actor/director/spiritual healer who describes herself as living with a
girlfriend."
It's a charming family values story.
For those who enjoy this sort of politics of the absurd Palingates
sort of catalogs some of the more famous low points here. It seems to be a
longer list everyday.
http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/09/christine-odonnell-masturbation-god-and.html
TB
Lone Haranguer
> For those who enjoy this sort of politics of the absurd Palingates sort of
> catalogs some of the more famous low points here. It seems to be a longer
> list everyday.
TB never uttered a peep when the lemmings called Democrats blindly voted for
Alvin Greene as their candidate.
"Alvin Greene, 32, has become a national political celebrity after he upset a
former state lawmaker and judge to win the Democratic primary despite an
apparently light campaign schedule. Greene will remain on the November
ballot unless he withdraws, said former Democratic Party chairman Dick
Harpootlian."
Only AFTER he was elected did they find out he was less than qualified. His
ONLY qualification was that he ran as a Democrat.
"A Richland County grand jury indicted Greene on two charges of showing
obscene images to a female University of South Carolina student at a campus
computer lab."
Did we hear Hunter whining about his high moral standards?
Nope. When it comes to double standards you just can't match liberals.
LZ
will sill
"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in response to some ridicule from
(who else?) Lampson:
> And which Biblical principles would you be opposed to? Integrity? Not
> stealing? Good morals? Do unto others?
Many like Lampson are vehemently opposed to the Ten Commandments --- until
they are victimized by someone who shares their contempt for God's laws.
In case you hadn't noticed.
Will
Carl A.
>
>
> "Hunter Hampton" <airstrea...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:jk65961iqfou7up5f...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "David \"The Hamster\"
>> Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You should watch it... it's hilarious. I showed it to my wife last
>>> night and she thought it was a Saturday Night Live skit...
>>>
>>> David "The Hamster" Malone
>>
>>
>> Just what we need a moron who thinks masturbating is a "sin"
>>
>> Where do these people come from?
>
> Christine O'Donnell is a gift that just keeps giving. Someone was
> complaining because I wasn't talking about her ideas. Here's another fun
> one that I think speaks for itself:
>
Does that mean you and Hunter prefer Alvin Greene?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/nation/la-na-greene-20100814
Why am I not surprised?
Hunter Hampton
<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/09/christine-odonnell-masturbation-god-and.html
Thanks, that was a fun read.
I almost did a spit take when I read the words, "God's chatterbox"
Hunter
David "The Hamster" Malone
> I couldn't care less what her religious views are. I don't believe
> there is a Secretary of Masturbation
Um... I think there is ... whatshisname... Jack something..?
David "The Hamster" Malone
Hunter Hampton
Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>Um... I think there is ... whatshisname... Jack something..?
>
>David "The Hamster" Malone
Gough?
Hunter
David "The Hamster" Malone
wrote:
> Gough?
Lol... I didn't want to go there... but I knew somebody would...
David "The Hamster" Malone
David "The Hamster" Malone
wrote:
> Just what we need a moron who thinks masturbating is a "sin"
> Where do these people come from?
Offered without comment...
http://www.borowitzreport.com/
David "The Hamster" Malone
Carl A.
I'm sure Alvin Greene will be delighted to supply the marchers with
photos to masturbate to.
Democrats do take care of their own...
David "The Hamster" Malone
> I'm sure Alvin Greene will be delighted to supply the marchers with
> photos to masturbate to.
Maybe you can lend them some of your Ann Coulter photos...?
David "The Hamster" Malone
Hunter Hampton
Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>Offered without comment...
>
>http://www.borowitzreport.com/
<spew>
Perfect....
Hunter Hampton
Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>Offered without comment...
>
>http://www.borowitzreport.com/
>
>David "The Hamster" Malone
Better yet....
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2010/09/06/rabid-dog-briefly-mistaken-for-tea-party-candidate/
Owen McKenzie
"David "The Hamster" Malone" <mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:1b1aec56-04ce-4b57...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
To quote a famous American, "I don't care who you are, that's funny!"
--
Owen McKenzie
Pigeon Forge, TN
Just because someone isn't a member of congress doesn't mean he's honest
- Unknown
Lone Haranguer
Man, there are more people unemployed than I thought.
Or did they all call in sick?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Your candidate Alvin Greene may end up on the sex offenders watch list.
LZ
Bruce S
> Bruce
> Do you believe only those who operate on "Biblical Principles"
> believe in "integrity, not stealing, good morals, and do unto
> others?
Time for you to go back to school and re-take that reading comprehension
class. No where did I say that only people who operate on Biblical
Principles believe in integrity, not stealing, good morals, and do unto
others. Additionally, I did not say that people who are not religious
cannot believe in integrity, not stealing, good morals, and do unto others.
What I did was ask which of those principles you are opposed to.
> Have you ever heard of Jim & Tammy Baker, and several other
> phony baloney Christians, who also made a big deal out of how they
> were guided by their religion?
Go back and read what I wrote one more time. I said nothing about phony
Christians, in fact, I said nothing about Christians. I simply asked which
of those Biblical principles you would be opposed to.
Bruce
Technobarbarian
"Carl A. " <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c936686$0$1618$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Uh Carl................................. Alvin Greene isn't running
against Christine O'Donnell. It isn't necessary to prefer one spectacularly
unqualified loon to the other. I do think that would make an interesting
election though.
If you want to talk about pornography who do you prefer--Alvin Greene
or Carl Paladino?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/carl_paladino_watches_bestiali.html
"Paladino has had some trouble with racial sensitivity in the past, so
learning that he's one of those people who sends e-mails portraying Obama as
an African tribesman or a seventies-era pimp is, while still no less
despicable, not totally surprising. But then the Paladino e-mails take
things to a whole new level. He sent around one deep-throat porn video with
the comment "this is talent." He referred to another porn clip, allegedly
featuring Miss France 2008, as a "keeper." But best of all was the video he
forwarded of a woman doing a horse. No joke."
"Carl Paladino won the Republican primary for governor last night, beating
his opponent 62% to 38%. He'll face the Democratic attorney general, Andrew
Cuomo, in November.
But who is Paladino? He's an ultra-conservative who's appeared in the pages
of TPMmuckraker before for a series of, to be gentle, gaffes. As they say,
all publicity is good publicity. Here's a refresher.
In April, Paladino apologized after dozens of emails he had forwarded --
racist, sexually explicit emails -- found their way into the press. The
emails included one that showed President Obama as a pimp, another with a
video of an African tribal dance titled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," and
some hardcore pornographic videos.
His apology was couched, saying he was sorry if the emails were offensive to
any "ladies," but welcomed the votes of men who have ever "opened a graphic
image on the Internet." He later said, "That activity is not Carl Paladino."
In August, he offered up a way to help the poor and welfare recipients get
on their feet: Putting them in prison."
At least Alvin Greene appears to prefer man/woman porn. I'm betting
that Carl likes the idea of using prisons to house people on welfare so much
that he's willing to overlook a little bestiality.
TB
Don Lampson
People who think "Biblical principles" will instantly improve
government reveal themselves as fools who believe the supernatural will
"make things right" somehow?
Will Sill is a perfect example of this, by rubbing others noses in
his religion with the Ten Commandments as a cure all for society!
Telling people not to murder, steal, or lie to authorities is nothing
but "secular humanism"! The other seven commandments have nothing to do
with improving society much, if any?
One wonders what sort of punishment Will would like to see inflicted
for not honoring the Sabbath, which is Saturday, BTW, taking the
Lord's name in vain, or, being a Buddhist? HawHawHaw!
Don
Frank Tabor
<airstrea...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >Um... I think there is ... whatshisname... Jack something..?
> Gough?
> Hunter
Meough!
--
Sheesh
David "The Hamster" Malone
> Meough!
Cat got your tongue...?
David "The Hamster" Malone
Bruce S
I suppose that an argument could be made that there are stupider people here
than you, but anyone reading your contribution to this thread would never
believe it.
Lets start again. NOTHING was said about imposing the Bible on anyone. The
question that was asked of you (and anyone else who wants to respond) was
which Biblical principles (not stealing or lying, etc.) do you think should
be kept out of government? If you can't understand that question, and
provide a simple answer, just say so. No one here will be surprised that
you aren't smart enough to understand the issue.
Bruce
Lone Haranguer
> At least Alvin Greene appears to prefer man/woman porn.
Oh! Hey! As a Democrat, I'm sure that terrific asset will get him elected.
No reason to make the bar too high.
LZ
Carl A.
>
> ?
>>>
>>> Christine O'Donnell is a gift that just keeps giving. Someone was
>>> complaining because I wasn't talking about her ideas. Here's another fun
>>> one that I think speaks for itself:
>>>
>>
>> Does that mean you and Hunter prefer Alvin Greene?
>>
>> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/nation/la-na-greene-20100814
>>
>> Why am I not surprised?
>
> Uh Carl................................. Alvin Greene isn't running
> against Christine O'Donnell. It isn't necessary to prefer one
> spectacularly unqualified loon to the other. I do think that would make
> an interesting election though.
A bit dense, aren't you?
And if you claim that Alvin isn't your typical Dem candidate, I give you
Maxine the Socialister and Charlie the Crook (who just got practically
reelected)
>
> If you want to talk about pornography who do you prefer--Alvin Greene or
> Carl Paladino?
>
> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/carl_paladino_watches_bestiali.html
>
>
> At least Alvin Greene appears to prefer man/woman porn. I'm betting that
> Carl likes the idea of using prisons to house people on welfare so much
> that he's willing to overlook a little bestiality.
>
> TB
And I thought that kinky sex was your special interest...
BTW, Spitzer (client #9) might touch base with Paladino.
bill horne
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "David \"The Hamster\"
> Malone"<mal...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You should watch it... it's hilarious. I showed it to my wife last
>> night and she thought it was a Saturday Night Live skit...
>>
>> David "The Hamster" Malone
>
>
> Just what we need a moron who thinks masturbating is a "sin"
>
> Where do these people come from?
>
Well, I can't get worked up (no pun intended) about masturbation being
a "sin". First, I'm an agnostic, and second, if they passed a law to
ban it or regulate it, I can't imagine how they'd enforce it.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Technobarbarian
"Carl A. " <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c93d55c$0$5658$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> On 09/17/10 12:55 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
>>
>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Christine O'Donnell is a gift that just keeps giving. Someone was
>>>> complaining because I wasn't talking about her ideas. Here's another
>>>> fun
>>>> one that I think speaks for itself:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does that mean you and Hunter prefer Alvin Greene?
>>>
>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/nation/la-na-greene-20100814
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised?
>>
>> Uh Carl................................. Alvin Greene isn't running
>> against Christine O'Donnell. It isn't necessary to prefer one
>> spectacularly unqualified loon to the other. I do think that would make
>> an interesting election though.
>
> A bit dense, aren't you?
>
> And if you claim that Alvin isn't your typical Dem candidate, I give you
> Maxine the Socialister and Charlie the Crook (who just got practically
> reelected)
Not that I give a RA, Dem or GOP, but as far as nutcases go it looks
like the GOP is ahead by a landslide in the upcoming election. I can match
every name you can come up with with two on your side.
>
>>
>> If you want to talk about pornography who do you prefer--Alvin Greene or
>> Carl Paladino?
>>
>> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/carl_paladino_watches_bestiali.html
>>
>
>>
>> At least Alvin Greene appears to prefer man/woman porn. I'm betting that
>> Carl likes the idea of using prisons to house people on welfare so much
>> that he's willing to overlook a little bestiality.
>>
>> TB
>
> And I thought that kinky sex was your special interest...
Everything I'm involved in requires informed consent. Animals do not
have the capacity for informed consent. But, you ducked the question. Which
do you prefer--Alvin Greene or Carl Paladino?
TB
Janet Wilder
Funny!
--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
Lone Haranguer
Has Paladino been indicted yet? Greene has.
LZ
Hunter Hampton
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.borowitzreport.com/
>>
>> David "The Hamster" Malone
>
>
>Funny!
A stroke of genius....
Hunter
Lone Haranguer
The manufacturers of batteries gave out free refreshments; the crowd is a
major part of their consumer base.
LZ
Owen McKenzie
"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c93af6d$0$9956$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
gonna happen.
Bob Hatch
At least not an intelligent one. :-)
--
"There are no jobs that Americans
will not do. There are jobs Americans
will not be hired for because an
illegal alien has taken it."
"Illegal Alien = Job Thief"
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
http://www.keepazsafe.com/
Bruce S
After I posted that it occurred to me that the problem might simply be that
Don has no idea what principles are. He seems to be confusing behaviors
with principles, and while we try to behave in accordance with our
principles, it is possible to fail. That doesn't mean that the principles
are not there, only that we are human. But really, who could object to a
politician whose principles demanded integrity, honesty, and a lack of
fraudulent behavior.
Bruce
Carl A.
>
>
> "Carl A. " <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4c93d55c$0$5658$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On 09/17/10 12:55 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
>>>
>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Christine O'Donnell is a gift that just keeps giving. Someone was
>>>>> complaining because I wasn't talking about her ideas. Here's
>>>>> another fun
>>>>> one that I think speaks for itself:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean you and Hunter prefer Alvin Greene?
>>>>
>>>> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/nation/la-na-greene-20100814
>>>>
>>>> Why am I not surprised?
>>>
>>> Uh Carl................................. Alvin Greene isn't running
>>> against Christine O'Donnell. It isn't necessary to prefer one
>>> spectacularly unqualified loon to the other. I do think that would make
>>> an interesting election though.
>>
>> A bit dense, aren't you?
>>
>> And if you claim that Alvin isn't your typical Dem candidate, I give
>> you Maxine the Socialister and Charlie the Crook (who just got
>> practically reelected)
>
> Not that I give a RA, Dem or GOP, but as far as nutcases go it looks
> like the GOP is ahead by a landslide in the upcoming election. I can
> match every name you can come up with with two on your side.
I'm inclined to say "please do," but we would have a problem defining
"nutcase." As far as I'm concerned, 0bama, Geithner, Romer, Summers,
Wright, and Alinsky disciples trump whatever you can come up with.
>>
>>>
>>> If you want to talk about pornography who do you prefer--Alvin Greene or
>>> Carl Paladino?
>>>
>>> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/carl_paladino_watches_bestiali.html
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> At least Alvin Greene appears to prefer man/woman porn. I'm betting that
>>> Carl likes the idea of using prisons to house people on welfare so much
>>> that he's willing to overlook a little bestiality.
>>>
>>> TB
>>
>> And I thought that kinky sex was your special interest...
>
> Everything I'm involved in requires informed consent. Animals do not
> have the capacity for informed consent. But, you ducked the question.
> Which do you prefer--Alvin Greene or Carl Paladino?
>
> TB
Did the voters who looked to "0bama Money" to support them and fill
their gas tanks have the intelligence for "informed consent?" Do Kinney
and Hunter???
Don Lampson
Perhaps you can tell me how returning to "Biblical principles" will
improve government, since that's what so many conservatives seem to
crow about?
The Klu Klux Klan brays about being guided by "Biblical principles"
too! They always have a prayer to start their "ceremonies"....
Elmer
nothermark
FWIW - Paladino has had his victory. As long a Cuomo Jr keeps his
mouth shut most of downstate and the big cities upstate will elect
him.
nothermark
wrote:
In the first place bribery in any form is frowned upon. That includes
buying politicians with large election contributions. Of course,
there is the danger that we would actually want our elected officials
to think about what they were doing...
Owen McKenzie
"Don Lampson" <DonLa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21259-4C9...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
See, another non-answer.
will sill
"Owen McKenzie" <jomck...@escapees.com> wrote concerning more misguided
drivel from "Don Lampson":
> See, another non-answer.
Don is a semi-permanent resident in my killfile for several good reasons,
but I'm glad to see that a few of you have the time and the guts to let him
know how repugnant his views are.
Biblical principles are viewed with hostility and alarm by Don and his ilk
for many reasons, primarily guilt. The Bible makes it very clear that all
are Guilty. Knowing that the charge is true, they react with hatred against
those of us who understand that the God of the Bible is not just holy and
even-handed and unwilling to overlook sin, but merciful and gracious enough
to FORGIVE sin.
Contrary to the views held by the Bible's enemies, compliance with the Bible
is entirely VOLUNTARY. God does not grab you by the throat and demand good
behavior. The Bible teaches that there are consequences for bad choices.
It is certainly true that there are a lot of goofy ideas out there.
Including some few who, while calling themselves Christians or Jews, support
laws compelling others to submit to their interpretations of Biblical
principles. But this is a perversion akin to the Islaamic jihadist's idea
that "infidels" (people who don't accept their ways) must be killed.
Every person is at liberty to make their own choices. The Bible simply
spells out the consequences of bad choices, and tells the story of God's
willingness to forgive. Too bad Lampson, Jenny, Hunter etc Just Don't Get
It - but God is never going to FORCE them to get with the program.
When you insist on taking the wrong road, you'll get to the wrong place.
--
Will
God is handling our security. Who is
handling yours?
Max
news:IK3lo.26419$0O3....@newsfe11.iad...
Have you ever *read* the Bible? Do you think you understand what it says?
"Deuteronomy 13:6-18 (New King James Version)
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the
wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices
you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known,
neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all
around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to
the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him,
nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but
you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him
to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone
him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the
LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of
bondage."
And then:
"|Rev. 22:18 & 19
Testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophesy of this book: if
anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in
this book; 19: and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophesy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the
holy city which are written in this book."
What do you do; pick and choose?
Max
Bruce S
> Bruce
> Perhaps you can tell me how returning to "Biblical principles" will
> improve government, since that's what so many conservatives seem to
> crow about?
If you can't figure out how a return to honesty will improve government, I
certainly can't explain it to you.
Bruce
Frank Howell
Yes! Today it's Buddhism, maybe tomorrow Hinduism. Whatever one that doesn't
believe in everlasting Hell.
--
Frank Howell
Don Lampson
So, Biblical principles = Honesty? Aren't politicians supposed to
be honest now? Don't we have secular laws to insure this?
So, "Biblical principles" must just be "buzz words", which signify
"new, and improved", or is there more to consider?
You've already stated that honesty isn't dependent on religion, so
just what does the term "Biblical principles" mean?
Puzzled?
Lone Haranguer
> Max wrote:
>> What do you do; pick and choose?
>>
>> Max
>
> Yes! Today it's Buddhism, maybe tomorrow Hinduism. Whatever one that doesn't
> believe in everlasting Hell.
>
the goal of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
LZ
will sill
"Max" <thesam...@sbcglobal.net> tried a "gotcha" by asking:
> Have you ever *read* the Bible? Do you think you understand what it says?
I have no interest whatever in debating with someone who yanks a couple of
Bible verses out of their plain context while trying to make a point. So
rather than debate, I'll simply say:
- Yes, I've read the Bible several times, in more than one translation - and
we read portions daily.
- Yes, I think I do understand much of what it says, including the central
message. But I have yet to meet or hear from anyone arrogant enough to
claim they understand _everything_ it says.
You ask:
> What do you do; pick and choose?
No, but I AM smart enough to realize the very plain truth that not EVERY
passage applies to me or you in our time. Examine whether a section is
historical, allegorical, prophetic or what. If you insist on taking things
outa context, you're no better than the loons who make a joke with "Judas
went and hanged himself. . . Go thou and do likewise." Or, out of context
but wryly amusing to some is the bumper sticker: "Pray for 0Bama - Psalm
109:8". [For those with no Bible handy, the NIV version: "May his days be
few; may another take his place of leadership. "]
Biblical principles remain valid despite generations of naysayers.
--
If laws could cure the world's problems, then God's laws
would have been more than adequate. But we are drowning
in both laws and dysfunction!
Will
Mike Hendrix
<will.e...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>"Max" <thesam...@sbcglobal.net> tried a "gotcha" by asking:
>
>> Have you ever *read* the Bible? Do you think you understand what it says?
>
>I have no interest whatever in debating with someone who yanks a couple of
>Bible verses out of their plain context while trying to make a point. So
>rather than debate, I'll simply say:
>
>- Yes, I've read the Bible several times, in more than one translation - and
>we read portions daily.
>
>- Yes, I think I do understand much of what it says, including the central
>message. But I have yet to meet or hear from anyone arrogant enough to
>claim they understand _everything_ it says.
>
>You ask:
>
>> What do you do; pick and choose?
>
>No, but I AM smart enough to realize the very plain truth that not EVERY
>passage applies to me or you in our time. Examine whether a section is
>historical, allegorical, prophetic or what. If you insist on taking things
>outa context, you're no better than the loons who make a joke with "Judas
>went and hanged himself. . . Go thou and do likewise." Or, out of context
>but wryly amusing to some is the bumper sticker: "Pray for 0Bama - Psalm
>109:8". [For those with no Bible handy, the NIV version: "May his days be
>few; may another take his place of leadership. "]
>
>Biblical principles remain valid despite generations of naysayers.
Tap dance queen doing a quick jig.
mike
--
Owen McKenzie
"Max" <thesam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4c94d4d0$0$5069$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Have you ever *read* the Bible? Do you think you understand what it says?
>
> "Deuteronomy 13:6-18 (New King James Version)
> 6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the
> wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly
> entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not
> known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are
> all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth
> to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to
> him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him;
> 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to
> put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you
> shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you
> away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
> from the house of bondage."
>
> And then:
>
> "|Rev. 22:18 & 19
> Testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophesy of this book: if
> anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in
> this book; 19: and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
> prophesy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the
> holy city which are written in this book."
>
> What do you do; pick and choose?
>
> Max
>
>
>
Max
news:8fkvtl...@mid.individual.net...
Well, I make no claim to be a believer in the Bible. I think it was written
by humans and is a collection of fables, myths and clan traditions with just
enough history thrown in to make it believable to the gullible.
But I'm sufficiently familiar with it to realize that most Christians pick
and choose what to believe, what to *rationalize* and what to dismiss.
And that doesn't make me an atheist.
Max
Max
>
> "Max" <thesam...@sbcglobal.net> tried a "gotcha" by asking:
>
>> Have you ever *read* the Bible? Do you think you understand what it says?
>
> I have no interest whatever in debating with someone who yanks a couple of
> Bible verses out of their plain context while trying to make a point. So
> rather than debate, I'll simply say:
>
> - Yes, I've read the Bible several times, in more than one translation -
> and we read portions daily.
Perhaps you'll explain what the Deuteronomy quote *really* means.
> - Yes, I think I do understand much of what it says, including the central
> message. But I have yet to meet or hear from anyone arrogant enough to
> claim they understand _everything_ it says.
>
> You ask:
>> What do you do; pick and choose?
>
> No, but I AM smart enough to realize the very plain truth that not EVERY
> passage applies to me or you in our time. Examine whether a section is
> historical, allegorical, prophetic or what. If you insist on taking things
> outa context, you're no better than the loons...........
Can you tell me why there are so many different interpretations............
And why some of the Bible is to be taken literally and some dismissed or
rationalized?
> Biblical principles remain valid despite generations of naysayers.
I won't argue with that. The vast majority of people need some sort of
threat (hell) or some sort of promise (heaven) in order to behave.
> Will
JanO...@aol.com
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:20:04 -0400, "will sill"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Max" <thesameol...@sbcglobal.net> tried a "gotcha" by asking:
Yabut, Mike! A tap dance right here is the RORT Leftist obsession in
this thread where they have changed the subject to "Biblical
Principles" from a discussion about the Delaware election. The left is
obsessed about someone else who has a Constitutional Right to their
own beliefs. Lampson and Company braying because one person's
*Personal* belief is against Jacking Off. BFD! It has noting to do
with what voters will do on November 2. OR who
is better qualified to be in the Senate.
IMHO that will come down to what Delaware voters decide between Coons
and O'Donnell and their record rather than if and when either of them
will go into a private room and masterbate or not. It's Leftist mental
masterbation. Are we now down to deciding our leaders that way?
Eh?
Meanwhile, the Christine O'Donnell campaign just raised more than $1.5
million in less than 72 hours. Her campaign is ready for a good run at
that seat.
So, excuse me but I am changing this post back to theOP subject and
posting the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Why It's Time For The Tea Party
by Peggy Noonan ~ WSJ Opinion Journal ~ 9/18/10
"The populist movement is more a critique of the GOP than a wing of
it."
This fact marks our political age: The pendulum is swinging faster and
in shorter arcs than it ever has in our lifetimes. Few foresaw the
earthquake of 2008 in 2006. No board-certified political professional
predicted, on Election Day 2008, what happened in 2009-10 (New Jersey,
Virginia and Massachusetts) and has been happening, and will happen,
since then. It all moves so quickly now, it all turns on a dime.
But at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have
some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past
few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the
possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one?
While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And
nobody organized it.
Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the tea party's
innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea
Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and
literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no
hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain
traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American
politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a
large scale."
Here are pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen in the Washington
Examiner: "The Tea Party has become one of the most powerful and
extraordinary movements in American political history." "It is as
popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties." "Over half of
the electorate now say they favor the Tea Party movement, around 35
percent say they support the movement, 20 to 25 percent self-identify
as members of the movement."
So far, the tea party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it.
This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives
dismissed tea party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The
Republican establishment is "the reason we even have the Tea Party
movement," shot back columnist and tea party enthusiast Andrea
Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration
that "ran up deficits" and gave us "open borders" and "Medicare Part D
and busted budgets."
Everyone has an explanation for the tea party that is actually not an
explanation but a description. They're "angry." They're
"antiestablishment," "populist," "anti-elite." All to varying degrees
true. But as a network television executive said this week, "They
should be fed up. Our institutions have failed."
I see two central reasons for the tea party's rise. The first is the
yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine
that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and
larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the
many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've
got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and
less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two
major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay
down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each
party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves
the government a few inches in their direction.
But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How
come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant,
government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always
grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with
those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the
media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in
negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward
the 36-inch point.
Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30,
Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28.
Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But
regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss.
They could live with 18. They'd like eight. Instead it's 28.
For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats
(and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a
trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too
costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are
thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but
finally start cutting."
What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18
inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea
party candidates will do that.
The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea
party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get
the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to.
We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and
cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The
issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they
fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their
children.
So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of
profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a
tea party-backed candidate.
That is the context. Local tea parties seem—so far—not to be falling
in love with the particular talents or background of their candidates.
It's more detached than that. They don't say their candidates will be
reflective, skilled in negotiations, a great senator, a Paul Douglas
or Pat Moynihan or a sturdy Scoop Jackson. These qualities are not
what they think are urgently needed. What they want is someone who
will walk in, put her foot on the conservative end of the yardstick,
and make everything slip down in that direction.
Nobody knows how all this will play out, but we are seeing something
big—something homegrown, broad-based and independent. In part it is a
rising up of those who truly believe America is imperiled and truly
mean to save her. The dangers, both present and potential, are
obvious.
A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or
it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness
as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and
vulgarity with true conviction. Parts could become swept by a desire
just to tear down, to destroy.
But establishments exist for a reason. It is true that the party
establishment is compromised, and by many things, but one of them is
experience. They've lived through a lot, seen a lot, know the national
terrain. They know how things work. They know the history. I wonder if
tea party members know how fragile are the institutions that help keep
the country together.
One difference so far between the tea party and the great wave of
conservatives that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 is the latter was a
true coalition—not only North and South, East and West but right-
wingers, intellectuals who were former leftists, and former Democrats.
When they won presidential landslides in 1980, '84 and '88, they
brought the center with them. That in the end is how you win. Will the
center join arms and work with the tea party? That's a great question
of 2012.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Eric Orme
roamer
wrote:
>
>Tap dance queen doing a quick jig.
>
>mike
I bet you think that makes sense!
Don Lampson
I asked how "Biblical principles" would improve government, and was
called stupid, for not understanding what it meant?
As you well know, slogan believers don't want any questions asked!
As my ex-wife used to say, "If you don't know, then there's no point
in me explaining it to you...." HawHawHaw!
As you might have noticed, Will has a list of "enemies of the Bible".
Hunter, Jenny, yrs truly, and "etc" (those yet to be determined?)
made Will's list! Don't ask questions, or you'll find yourself on
that list too! HawHawHaw!
BTW, this comes from a the same phony phony, who gave an elaborate
"farewell address" to RORT, explaining how there was no reason to
continue, but returned anyway, with never a mention of why he was
drawn back? That's Mr. Sill's idea of the "integrity", inspired by
"Biblical principles"? What a nutcase!
Good luck with your meaningful dialog with those who don't want to
explain "buzz words" which guide their thinking!
Don
JanO...@aol.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Yabut, Mike! A tap dance right here is the RORT Leftist obsession in
> this thread where they have changed the subject to "Biblical
> Principles" from a discussion about the Delaware election. The left is
> obsessed about someone else who has a Constitutional Right to their
> own beliefs. Lampson and Company braying because one person's
> with what voters will do on November 2. OR who
> is better qualified to be in the Senate.
>
> IMHO that will come down to what Delaware voters decide between Coons
> and O'Donnell and their record rather than if and when either of them
> will go into a private room and masterbate or not. It's Leftist mental
> masterbation. Are we now down to deciding our leaders that way?
> Eh?
>
> Meanwhile, the Christine O'Donnell campaign just raised more than $1.5
> million in less than 72 hours. Her campaign is ready for a good run at
> that seat.
>
> So, excuse me but I am changing this post back to theOP subject and
> posting the following:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
> Why It's Time For The Tea Party
> by Peggy Noonan ~ WSJ Opinion Journal ~ 9/18/10
> "The populist movement is more a critique of the GOP than a wing of
> it."
<snip>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christine O'Donnell Takes "The Ruling Class" to Task
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42348.html
By DAVID CATANESE | 9/17/10 4:40 PM EDT
Delaware GOP Senate candidate and tea party sensation Christine
O'Donnell torched "ruling-class elites" and their "anti-Americanism,"
in her debut on the national stage Friday, encouraging the room of
conservatives to lead a constitutional comeback in this year's midterm
election.
O'Donnell's 17-minute speech before the Family Research Council's
Value Voters Summit made no direct mention of her primary upset of
nine-term Rep. Mike Castle Tuesday; it instead focused on the
enthusiasm that's reinvigorated the conservative movement in the two
years since President Obama took office.
"The conservative movement was told to curl up in a fetal position and
just stay there for the next eight years, thank you very much. Well,
how things have changed," O'Donnell said, to cheers.
O'Donnell, who defeated Castle by a 6-point margin despite sustained
attacks on her misstatements and financial troubles – past and present
— repeatedly chided "the ruling class" and championed "a rowdy
revolution of reason."
"The small elite don't get us. They call us wacky. They call us
wingnuts. We call us, 'We the people,'" she said to sustained
applause. "We're loud, we're rowdy, we're passionate. … It isn't tame,
but boy, it sure is good."
She also addressed the personal scrutiny and criticisms she has
endured since her candidacy vaulted into the national spotlight just
weeks ago, when she appeared to be gaining momentum against Castle in
her third shot at a Senate seat.
"Will they attack us? Yes. Will they smear our backgrounds and distort
our records? Undoubtedly. Will they lie about us, harass our families,
namecall to try to intimidate us? They will. There's nothing safe
about it. But is it worth it?" she said.
"Well, let me ask you. Is freedom worth it?" she asked, as the crowd
chanted "Yes." "Is America worth it?"
She used her middle-class upbringing in New Jersey to briefly explain
one of the most perplexing charges that has dogged her campaign — why
it took her more than 15 years to earn her college degree from
Fairleigh Dickinson University.
"I never had the high-paying job or the company car. It took me over a
decade to pay off my student loans. I never had to worry about where
to dock my yacht to reduce my taxes," she said, jabbing at Sen. John
Kerry for dodging a six-figure yacht tax in his home state. '"And I'll
bet most of you didn't, either."
O'Donnell argued that while Beltway elites are attempting to
marginalize their movement, it’s conservatives who represent the core
of mainstream America.
"We're not trying to take back our country. We are our country,"
O'Donnell said, before making a subtle reference to a phrase Obama has
been using on the campaign trail. "That's what's happening in America
today, the grown-ups are taking away the keys."
Continuing on that theme, the former television commentator lamented
Washington bureaucrats who have "weaseled" their way into personal
decisions that should be left up to individuals, using a line of
attack first delivered by Sarah Palin.
"They even want unelected panels of bureaucrats to decide who gets
what life-saving medical care and who is just too old, or it's too
expensive to be worth saving," she said, a nod to the fictional "death
panels" that Palin first used to attack the health care bill. "They'll
buy your teenage daughter an abortion but they won't let her buy a
sugary soda in a school's vending machine."
While O'Donnell lacked the sizzling electricity that is Palin’s
trademark, her speech was smoothly delivered and well-received by the
sympathetic crowd at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.
Back in May at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee, the president said Republicans wanted the keys back after
"they drove the car into the ditch."
O’Donnell’s only other veiled reference to the president came when she
spoke of "anti-Americanism" and criticized leaders for apologizing for
America.
"When I talk to people out on the campaign trail in Delaware, I'm
hearing frustration, not only with the direction our country is headed
but with the anti-Americanism that taints every outlet of the ruling
class. Americans want our leaders to defend our values, our culture,
our legacy of liberty and our way of life, not apologize," she said.
O'Donnell's appearance at the Values Voter Summit marked O'Donnell's
first address to a national audience. She began reintroducing herself
to voters Thursday night in her first joint appearance with Democratic
nominee Chris Coons at a candidate forum in Wilmington.
"It's no secret that there's been a rather unflattering portrait of me
painted these days," she said during the forum. "I am fighting two
political parties here in Delaware."
Just before she took the stage, O'Donnell announced via tweet that her
campaign had raise more than $1.5 million in under 72 hours. "You are
all amazing," she wrote.
Democrats issued no immediate reaction to O'Donnell's speech,
signaling the delicacy with which they are initially handling her
insurgent candidacy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jan Eric Orme