Is O'Donnell really stupid?

Is O'Donnell really stupid?

Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes

There seems to be a lot of fear of attractive conservative brunettes to the point that they have to attacked as "stupid" by people who never really qualify that statement and when they do qualify it, it turns out they are factually wrong and she is right. I have to admit that I haven't sit down and listened to O'Donnell beyond soundbites. I've only read what she's come out with, so I found an interview she was going to be one where she was basically going to explain who she is and what she's about and sat down for a good 15-20 minutes and listened to her talk (without a teleprompter).

I'm going to skip past the politics of who she is and what she's about and focus on two political strategies she employed. In my opinion, politics are beliefs but where you measure intelligence is in how they are delivered and the strategies you employ.

The first is her response to the smear campaigns against her. Her angle on responding to this is that a vote for her opponent based on these smear campaigns is a vote in support of dirty politics that keeps good people out of office. She came out with this right when she revealed that a recent piece about a supposed one night stand that was written for the Gawker, was written by a person, a former Boy Scout, paid to write that smear piece. She indirectly showed how the Coons campaign has turned Boy Scouts into paid political hit men and then asked if that's the trend you want to set for future generations. That's pretty sharp because that cuts right past politics and to a core dissatisfaction people have been feeling for quite sometime....and it plays the guilt button which, as Obama illustrated, is quite effective.

The second thing she did, which was brilliant, was the same week that Obama announced he was coming into town to campaign for Coons - she had a rally called "Democrats for O'Donnell" and had as her featured speakers LOCAL Democrat leaders who were dissatisfied with what Washington has been up to lately. You talk about turning someone's attempt at "momentum" right against them, Obama is toxic in local constituencies that aren't populated with his sycophants and she capitalized on this by siding herself with names that don't mean anything to us, but mean something to Delaware voters in their local community. Obama flies in, talks for 20 minutes and flies out. These local Democrat leaders are there 24/7, talking to people. I don't care who you are, that is a very smart move.

We will see on Tuesday how it all plays out but it is interesting to see people rely so heavily on the characterization of political candidates as "stupid" or as some Democrats have tried to use lately "b-tch" or "whore", especially when they are factually wrong in how they came about that characterization. I would caution you in your use of it because by now, it's a tired, overused assertion. It reveals nothing more about the person you are attacking while revealing a whole lot more about you.

1Reply
138 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
15y
Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
What I do have a problem with is a bunch of blathering morons running for office

At the very top of this list is:
Barack Obama
And right behind him is the group including:
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Harry Reid
Barney Frank

And right behind them is Michelle Obama. While not running for office, she is the First Lady. She is the one who was NEVER proud of her country till her spouse got elected president. I was always proud of my country, although with him as president, I am quite embarrassed at the lack of intelligence of the electorate. Hopefully, they have worked at getting some education over the past 2 years. We shall find out today.

See this reply in the discussion

117 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y

    O'Donnell is the embodiment of most of what is wrong with this country. She has absolutely no business running for office and is drastically unqualified to run for the office she seeks. I have no idea whether or not she is going to win, but the fact that she has made it as far as she has is a clearcut demonstration that this country is in severe disarray.

    The "facts" can be spun any old way you want to spin them Tim. While the First Amendment may not expressly state that there will be a "Separation of Church and State" it does state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I guess the fact that this traces back to John Locke and was part of the original ideals that this country was founded on has no bearing on whether or not it applies. All that matters is that it is not overtly cited in The United States Constitution. Heck...I guess ALL things that are not overtly stated in said document are not germane. If it ain't in the document it doesn't apply....right Tim?

    The truth is that all of this is FAR right-wing spinning to deflect the fact that O'Donnell doesn't know what the heck she is doing. God help us if we get several of these nut jobs in the upper house molding policy for our nation at a time when we need good leadership the most.

    I guess we can always fall back on the fact that she dabbled in witchcraft, doesn't believe in evolution, and has no experience to position her for the office she seeks. Her 7-day fellowship should serve our country well too.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    Bryan,
    Qualify your statement "drastically unqualified to run for the office she seeks".

    "While the First Amendment may not expressly state that there will be a "Separation of Church and State" it does state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." "

    No it doesn't. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Liberals tend to forget that second part, which is an irony as it is a key part of Classic Liberalism (which is political ideology diametrically opposed to what today's liberals have become).

    "All that matters is that it is not overtly cited in The United States Constitution. Heck...I guess ALL things that are not overtly stated in said document are not germane. If it ain't in the document it doesn't apply....right Tim?"

    10th amendment to the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Gee Bryan, tell me how stupid the Tea Party candidates are again.

    "I guess we can always fall back on the fact that she dabbled in witchcraft,"

    What a strong, meaningful political case you have here. I am in awe of this amazingly relevant contention. If only all politicians were tested to see if they weigh the same as a duck.

    "doesn't believe in evolution,"

    Darwin based his theory of evolution on pangenesis, which was disproved in the 19th century. I don't know which part of evolution she was talking about as these 4 words were taken out of context of the conversation. A lot of evolution is a myth, some is very probable and some is fact. I don't know her position on this until I know the context of the conversation. Do you know what it is? Do you have the text of the full conversation?

    Tim

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y

    I dk but i think Pain gets paid extra to pretend to be stupid

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y

    I dk but i think PaLin gets paid extra to pretend to be stupid

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    Want to give that one more try chief?

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y

    OOps sorry. I am now having second thoughts about posting from my touch screen phone.

    I was saying that I wouldn't be surprised if people like Sarah Palin get paid to pretend to be dumb at times.

    Mccain and his whole campaign designed to fail back in 2008. Meanwhile the Obama campaign made sense to everyone since it promised a supposed change.

    Or perhaps these conservatives that end up in office really are just ignorant people, and there is no need for an act. I know with Bush he didnt have to pretend.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Jimmy Neutron:
    I was saying that I wouldn't be surprised if people like Sarah Palin get paid to pretend to be dumb at times.

    I know with Bush he didnt have to pretend.

    Sarah became a millionaire with her book. Exactly why do you think it is she needs to be paid to "pretend to be dumb"?

    Bush flipped a baseball team, making 15 million dollars on a 600k investment, all borrowed. Now I don't know about you but that smacks of "dumb" right there. Have you done that? If he has, and you haven't, and he's "dumb" - what kind of a moron does that make you?

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    This is the problem with the "they're dumb" argument. It really looks bad on you when you call someone else dumb who's light years ahead of you in accomplishment. It really is just a dumb way of debating.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    Originally posted by Jimmy Neutron:
    I was saying that I wouldn't be surprised if people like Sarah Palin get paid to pretend to be dumb at times.

    I know with Bush he didnt have to pretend.

    Sarah became a millionaire with her book. Exactly why do you think it is she needs to be paid to "pretend to be dumb"?

    Bush flipped a baseball team, making 15 million dollars on a 600k investment, all borrowed. Now I don't know about you but that smacks of "dumb" right there. Have you done that? If he has, and you haven't, and he's "dumb" - what kind of a moron does that make you?

    I guess that makes me both ignorant, and mildly retarted. Good question though!

    I should probably just keep my *** out of the political threads entirely. For the simple fact that I think they are ALL full of it. Guess that doesen't really make for a good debate.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Jimmy Neutron:
    For the simple fact that I think they are ALL full of it. Guess that doesen't really make for a good debate.

    Not exactly. You're on the right track, imho. There's a reason Warren Buffet acts like such a simple man. I don't trust many of them after my research and almost none of them before, but if the people in DC and on the national scene who are hell bent on retaining power start targeting specific newcomers as "dumb", it tells me that this "dumb" person is probably worth a second look.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    Originally posted by Jimmy Neutron:
    For the simple fact that I think they are ALL full of it. Guess that doesen't really make for a good debate.

    Not exactly. I don't trust many of them after my research and almost none of them before, but if the people in DC and on the national scene who are hell bent on retaining power start targeting specific newcomers as "dumb", it tells me that this "dumb" person is probably worth a second look.

    Yeah youre right. If the Big Govt guys are smearing you, you probably are doing something right.

    Heck look at Rand Paul, they attacked that dude from both sides of the isle. They don't want any more like Ron Paul in DC. Nobody to slow the ever expanding size of the Federal Govt.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Jimmy Neutron:
    Heck look at Rand Paul, they attacked that dude from both sides of the isle. They don't want any more like Ron Paul in DC. Nobody to slow the ever expanding size of the Federal Govt.

    I need to read some more of Rand's stuff. I'm starting to like him better than his dad.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y

    Yeah, he says some great things, and has some good ideas. Of course, he is a politician, and could just be saying whatever needs to be said to get elected.

    Its hard to believe any of them really. There are just too many lies, and too many campaigns based on those lies..

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    Bryan,
    Qualify your statement "drastically unqualified to run for the office she seeks".

    How about that she claims she dabbled in witchcraft? That alone is enough for me. If I am choosing among many candidates for office and someone lies in the pro witchcraft column it is a pretty easy for me to use a Sharpie in that instance to pare down the names.
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

    No it doesn't. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Liberals tend to forget that second part, which is an irony as it is a key part of Classic Liberalism (which is political ideology diametrically opposed to what today's liberals have become).

    Excuse me…yes it does! I didn’t feel like typing out the whole freaking amendment. The extra part of the passage you added further reinforces the fact that our founding fathers wanted the church out of our politics. Just because there isn’t an overt writing of “separation church and state†doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the ideology this country was founded on.
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

    10th amendment to the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Gee Bryan, tell me how stupid the Tea Party candidates are again.

    Nice deflection…The simple fact that something is not EXPRESSLY STATED does not mean that the power should be reserved for the States. I am sure if you stop any average person on the street (less the Glen Beck followers) and ask them if the passage in the First Amendment means the same thing as “separation of church and state†you would overwhelmingly get people to say they are the same thing. This dogmatic adherence to something having to be written expressly in The Constitution is ridiculous and is the type of debate you get when you have someone with 7 days of training debating complicated issues.
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

    What a strong, meaningful political case you have here. I am in awe of this amazingly relevant contention. If only all politicians were tested to see if they weigh the same as a duck.

    This is extremely meaningful and speaks to the overall character of the candidate. We also shouldn’t be electing people that think the earth is the center of the universe or that there are four basic elements of matter.
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:

    Darwin based his theory of evolution on pangenesis, which was disproved in the 19th century. I don't know which part of evolution she was talking about as these 4 words were taken out of context of the conversation. A lot of evolution is a myth, some is very probable and some is fact. I don't know her position on this until I know the context of the conversation. Do you know what it is? Do you have the text of the full conversation?

    I am not going to debate this because it has religious undertones and I don’t want everyone on a message board to know my beliefs. Suffice it to say that it is, at best, a poor political calculation to side with people that don’t believe in evolution. That is all I am going to say about this.
  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    15y

    Something you don't hear much about is the people behind the canidate. I have not seen any Tea Bagger I could support, most I have to laugh at. The slogans, tactics, and responses all scripted by the brains of the operations. I saw some pretty stupid comments come out of her mouth, studying witchcraft, masterbation and sex, she goes the way the wind blows and is obviously easily influenced.

    As to Rand, anyone who couldn't pass his professional degree and not qualify for his certification and then start his own accredidation society to achieve his goals is not the kind of personality I would want skeeming in congress passing laws that effect others.

    His ideas are beyond ludicrist, these pure constitutionalsits wanting to get rid of the Department of Education, etc. are doing nothing more than palying on the emotions of dim witted, uneducated, red necks who tend to vote to their aspirations rather than the reality of their poor, lower/middle income class and simply resent the fact that they will never be much more than they are, yet they will defend the thinking that benefits only the ultra-wealthy as if that will make them something, at least within their own ego. In other words, there are so many stupid americans that can easily be manipulated in to taking up a cause for those who actually hold them down and can't realize what is actually in their own best interests.

    Just as an example, some poor shmuck who didn't have health insurance because the premiums were so high, picking up the banner for health insurance companies to repeal the health care changes.....easily manipulated by the man....laughable!

    Now, in my area, they have a guy who was a real estate broker and an auctioneer, no college degree, womanizer, attends strip clubs, but he's pro life and supports the NRA. He has name recognition. I doubt he can walk up the steps at congrass due to his weight and bad knees. A notch above Alvin Greene and he'll probably win. I have known him for years and know how he operates, I wouldn't buy a house from him. It's the people behind him, that will own him when he gets there.....that's what it's all about and I'm sure his vote will be going to the highest bidder, he'll probably hold the auction!

    So, yes, IMO, CM is an idiot and unprepaired at the task of governing, most are by themselves. Happy voting!

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Financexaminer:
    Something you don't hear much about is the people behind the canidate. I have not seen any Tea Bagger I could support, most I have to laugh at. The slogans, tactics, and responses all scripted by the brains of the operations. I

    You could replace Tea Bagger with Progressive or Leftist Commie and it would have the same meaning, and still be just as true.

    The truth is the "brains" behind both operations are in control. And I agree with you that how you vote will not matter, so long as these controllers fund both sides. If that is what you meant. Look at campaign contributors in the 2008 presidential election. Goldman Sachs had large contributions on both sides.

    However Ron and Rand Paul are the only people so far that I have seen that will even speak about our fiat currency, and unsound monetary policy. They are literally the ONLY candidates that you will see on your television (others exist but will not get media coverage) that will remotely educate people about how we got into this situation.

    The rest will have you believe that George Bush did it. As if he somehow he controls the Federal Reserve or Wall Street.

    The truth is that Congress cannot audit the Fed at all, they have no control over it. Ron Paul had a lot of people behind him to put something in Financial Reform that would allow a Congressional Audit. The stock market plunged like hell and the media reported an error that was dubbed "fat finger"

    The result of that day was that the Congress still will not have the power to fully audit the Fed. So understand something, you are voting for politicians that have NO control or oversight over our monetary policy.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    "How about that she claims she dabbled in witchcraft? That alone is enough for me. If I am choosing among many candidates for office and someone lies in the pro witchcraft column it is a pretty easy for me to use a Sharpie in that instance to pare down the names."

    So.....your opinions of the eligibility of a 41 year old Senate candidate....are based on what they did as a teenager in High School? I dare you to say this Bryan. I dare you to outright say, "Christine O'Donnell is not eligible to be a candidate for Senate because when she was a teenager in High School, she got curious about and dabbled in witchcraft and the dabbling of a teenager in high school into non mainstream religions beliefs should disqualify them as a Senatorial candidate a quarter of a century later in their life." This is what you are saying. I dare you to go on record with this statement.

    "Excuse me…yes it does! I didn’t feel like typing out the whole freaking amendment."

    I didn't type out the "whole freaking" amendment. I just finished the sentence as it was a very important element.

    "10th amendment to the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Gee Bryan, tell me how stupid the Tea Party candidates are again."

    "Nice deflection…The simple fact that something is not EXPRESSLY STATED does not mean that the power should be reserved for the States. I am sure if you stop any average person on the street (less the Glen Beck followers) and ask them if the passage in the First Amendment means the same thing as “separation of church and state†you would overwhelmingly get people to say they are the same thing. This dogmatic adherence to something having to be written expressly in The Constitution is ridiculous and is the type of debate you get when you have someone with 7 days of training debating complicated issues."

    I'm going to let this one just stand out here on it's own and completely admit that I "dogmatically" adhere to the Constitutional powers granted to the Federal government must be expressly written in the Constitution. Dogma by definition is a belief that you do not compromise on. I do not compromise on my beliefs that the Federal government is limited in power by the Constitution. It's called rule of law.

    "We also shouldn’t be electing people that think the earth is the center of the universe or that there are four basic elements of matter."

    See the above statement regarding teenagers in High School. I supposed when you were a teenager in High School you never did anything stupid.

    "Darwin based his theory of evolution on pangenesis, which was disproved in the 19th century. I don't know which part of evolution she was talking about as these 4 words were taken out of context of the conversation. A lot of evolution is a myth, some is very probable and some is fact. I don't know her position on this until I know the context of the conversation. Do you know what it is? Do you have the text of the full conversation?"

    "I am not going to debate this because it has religious undertones and I don’t want everyone on a message board to know my beliefs. Suffice it to say that it is, at best, a poor political calculation to side with people that don’t believe in evolution. That is all I am going to say about this."

    What religious undertones did I infer? I spoke of nothing but science. Perhaps you are confused. Pangenesis is not a religion. The root term genesis here refers to the scientific studies of the origins of life, not the first book of the Old Testament. Surely you aren't afraid of stupid Christin O'Donnell's full conversation here? There must be so much more stupid stuff to talk about once you find the whole conversation and bring the context to this.

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y

    Anyone that EMBRACES the fact that she "dabbled" in witchcraft years later is an idiot...pure and simple. I may have done things in high school that weren't perfect, but I certainly didn't try out witchcraft. People that do are freaking idiots and don't deserve to run for Senate. We have too many problems right now to entrust policy to the lower fourth of the gene pool.

    I guess if your dogma means that every possible power that the upper branch of government has should be overtly stated in The Constitution we are at an impasse. If we had to revise The Constitution every time we wanted some power to vest with the federal gov-mint the document would have 3.6million (likely more) amendments and would be absolutely unworkable. Fortunately, most of the rest of the country doesn't share these beliefs.

    So is your position that all powers for the federal government HAVE to be explicitly cited in The Constitution?

    I'm not afraid of O'Donnell's policy or any other similar intellectual flyweight. I just don't want to debate something that relates to religion on a message board. Regardless of what pangenesis says evolution overall deals with religion. I'm not going down that road.

  • Flipper · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 973 posts · 679 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:

    I am sure if you stop any average person on the street (less the Glen Beck followers) and ask them if the passage in the First Amendment means the same thing as “separation of church and state†you would overwhelmingly get people to say they are the same thing.

    Have you never seen Jaywalking? If you asked the average person on the street that question, they'd say "What's an amendment?"

    All the founding fathers were very religious, and the constitution was structured based upon what they believed God wanted. The government was influenced by their beliefs, and I don't believe they ever intended it to be completely separate. That said, they always intended for anyone who didn't follow the same religion, to be able to practice whatever they'd like.

    Check out some of the papers and books written by the men that drafted the constitution. Everything I've read indicates they believe God was leading them to create a better nation.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    "I may have done things in high school that weren't perfect, but I certainly didn't try out witchcraft. People that do are freaking idiots and don't deserve to run for Senate."

    So you are saying that because a teenager got curious about witchcraft and dabbled in it, they are ineligible to run for a position as Senator a quarter of a century later? Just say it out loud. Repeat it to yourself a couple times.

    "If we had to revise The Constitution every time we wanted some power to vest with the federal gov-mint the document would have 3.6million (likely more) amendments and would be absolutely unworkable."

    Or the Federal Government would not be the massive money printing, tax consuming beast it has become.

    "So is your position that all powers for the federal government HAVE to be explicitly cited in The Constitution?"

    I don't need it to be my position. It's spelled out quite clearly in the 10th Amendment. It is my position that the Federal government should be following the Constitution. Shocking I know.

    "I'm not afraid of O'Donnell's policy or any other similar intellectual flyweight. I just don't want to debate something that relates to religion on a message board. Regardless of what pangenesis says evolution overall deals with religion. I'm not going down that road."

    So you're not afraid....but you're running away from it. Uh huh....

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y

    I'm not running away from anything Tim. I am right here...take your best shot. I just don't want to debate religion because it is:

    1. Pointless...people won't change their beliefs

    2. Has no incremental bearing on the fact that O'Donnell is an idiot unfit for The Senate

    3. I don't want random people to know my beliefs

    Saying that everything the gov-mint can do has to be expressly written in The Constitution is too crazy to debate. There is a reason that there are IMPLIED powers and the language wasn't crafted in The 10th Amendment to make only what was expressly stated to be what the Feds can do. In fact, there was a movement to have this "expressly" language added to the document and IT FAILED because the people that sculpted this nation were smart enough to know they couldn't write down every possible power that they wished to vest at the federal level. There is this neato thing called The Necessary and Proper Clause:

    //Clause
    The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    //End Clause

    I am sure that given the passage cited earlier in this thread that most reasonable people would agree that it is necessary and proper for the upper branch to enforce the separation of church and state.

    Here is some logic for you:

    Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft and she later needed to repudiate this or embrace it. She EMBRACED it on national TV and is thus a moron. Since she is a moron she has no business being a Senator, which is why she is getting trounced in the polls I looked at today. Fortunately there are still some sane people in this country.

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y

    @Marc:

    I haven't seen the movie (I am assuming it is a movie) you cited.

    Would you agree that if The Constitution doesn't state we are allowed to go to war with North Korea then we can't do it? Heck....we can take this line of reasoning to its illogical extreme for eternity. Instead of having implied powers we can just say that anything we don't like isn't stated in The Constitution expressly and thus isn't eligible for federal control. Crazy stuff...

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y

    I don't like Hillary Clinton either Tom. Are you for EVERYTHING our federal government does being written down in The Constitution? I just want to gauge how crazy this thread is going to get so I know how to respond in kind.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
    Has no incremental bearing on the fact that O'Donnell is an idiot unfit for The Senate

    Bryan, you have admitted in this debate that you do not know how to register to vote in your Congressional district.

    On the topic of politics and elections, if there is anyone in this debate completely unqualified to call someone else an idiot IT IS YOU.

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y

    And I'm not running for Senator either Tim. Instead of debating THE FACTS that you are losing on you decide to start calling me names. Nice try...

    And I am registered to vote. I will be out of town during the election and have been too preoccupied to vote early. If that makes me an idiot so be it!

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.