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
137 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
  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    I never called you anything. I just completely discredited you on the topic. If you enter into a political debate you have to accept that as a completely fair maneuver you may encounter. Cheers.

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

    You did? I don't seem to see any counterpoint for the fact that there are IMPLIED powers through the Necessary and Proper clause. I don't expect to get a counterpoint either because YOU KNOW IT IS RIGHT. This nonsense about things needing to be overtly stated in The Constitution is almost as laughable as the fact that O'Donnell is running for Senator....almost!

    I guess the thread above doesn't overtly say I am an idiot either. I understand you have trouble with implied passages, powers, etc. so I will forgive your masked "I'm rubber and you're glue" counterpoint.

    Cheers...

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

    I ignored it because it doesn't have anything to do with expanding Congress power beyond what's explicitly stated in the Constitution. It only gives them the authority to create laws to govern that which falls within their power as defined by the Constitution. You were aiding my position. You do know what the word "foregoing" means, right?

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    Bryan
    You say because she dabbled in witchcraft, that disqualifies her for public office. Not to sound offensive, but that is extremely shallow. Wiccan is as much a religion as Catholicism, Luthern, Moron, Baptist, Muslim, etc... A persons religious belief is NOT a qualification for public office.

    Obozo wrote that he toked joints and snorted cocaine. Those are arrestable offenses. And now he is in the WH.

    People who bash President George W Bush have a very short memory. They forget the 14,000 Dow Jones. They forget the 4% unemployment. They forget that the current recession started at the end of 2007, when he Dumbocrats took over Congress.

    The OP asked if O'Donnell is really stupid? What is stupid is judging her without knowing her. What is stupid is voting for someone because of their race, gender, religious belief and not because of their political stance.

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

    I disagree Mike...and no...I don't take offense at all. The argument you have made is much more defensible than anything Tim has written in thousands of words on this thread.

    If this is shallow...so be it! There will be a referendum on this in two days and we will see what others think.

    O'Donnell's idiotic witchcraft is only the beginning too...that was the low-hanging fruit. We have now tended in the direction of lunacy that O'Donnell types believe in on the thread. Saying that something has to be expressly written in The Constitution to be vested in the power of the federal government.

    I guess since I don't know any of the politicians personally I should not form an opinion on them either. Is this correct Mike?

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    I ignored it because it doesn't have anything to do with expanding Congress power beyond what's explicitly stated in the Constitution. It only gives them the authority to create laws to govern that which falls within their power as defined by the Constitution. You were aiding my position. You do know what the word "foregoing" means, right?

    Really? I guess using this line of reasoning we can never revise The Constitution to broaden the powers of the federal government either because they would have been added AFTER the enumerated powers.

    Definition of foregoing:

    Occurring before or in front of something else, IN TIME, place, rank or sequence

    We can parse words to make them say whatever you want them to say Tim. Fortunately there is a long-running precedent for the fact that implied powers from The Necessary and Proper Clause are valid for the feds.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Financexaminer:

    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!

    Who is this terrible individual? Let me know and I'll pass on the information to the President Spence of Evangel, Pastor Peterson of Central Assembly, Brandon Beck of KY3 news (we were suite mates in college - he's a meteorologist but knows the right people there) and John Ashcroft's niece (we played in the same orchestra). You know how prevalent the A.G. church is in Springfield. I'm not joking about this. If this is true and he's representing himself as a tea party candidate, it's only fair they know these things about him.

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    Bryan
    Why is witchcraft idiotic? Because you disagree with it? I know people who would not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a member of a religious cult, Mormomism. People were incredulous when a Catholic got elected, JFK. I am sure there are millions of Americans who would never vote for a devout, avowed Muslim. And on and on.

    When I say "know someone," I am referring to knowing their voting record, knowing where they stand on the issues, knowing whom they associate with, knowing who backs them, and not listening to sound bites from any news network, whether it is CNN or FOX.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
    Really? I guess using this line of reasoning we can never revise The Constitution to broaden the powers of the federal government either because they would have been added AFTER the enumerated powers.

    No one ever said that, but you need to follow the Constitution to broaden those powers. You can't just "infer" new powers to the Federal government that don't exist because you feel like it.

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

    @Mike:

    I can't answer the witchcraft response because it will tend toward religion and I am not going there.

    @Tim
    I know you haven't said it. You haven't said what role the government can have with respect to forming policy in this thread at all and have dodged the question altogether. What role is it Tim? You seem to be in the camp that they can only function within the rights set forth in the enumerated powers. Is that it?

    Using the line of reasoning you have followed nothing after the "foregoing" passage is within their rights. Where in the enumerated powers does it say that Congress shall have the right to amend The Constitution? Please point me to that power that needs to be expressly stated to be valid according to your dogma.

    In fact...using this crazy reasoning The Constitution's amendments would all be invalid and every passage after Article I, Section 8 would be inconsequential. So either:

    1. Article I, Section 8's ending passage is the end of powers vested by the federal government and everything thereafter is contradictory

    or

    2. The implied powers through The Necessary and Proper clause are every bit as valid as anything written after Article I, Section 8

    Remember...if it isn't written down EXPRESSLY it isn't valid. There can be no interpretation....it HAS to be written down expressly.

    So which is it Tim?

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    Bryan
    Why is witchcraft idiotic? Because you disagree with it? I know people who would not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a member of a religious cult, Mormomism. People were incredulous when a Catholic got elected, JFK. I am sure there are millions of Americans who would never vote for a devout, avowed Muslim. And on and on.

    I was holding back on pointing out that one of his biggest attacks on O'Donnell was supposedly not understanding the First Amendment....and then he attacks her former religious activities....lol.

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

    Keep spinning Tim...how hard is it to answer some simple questions asked above? Continuing to say that someone doesn't understand something doesn't make it so if you can't prove it.

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

    "You seem to be in the camp that they can only function within the rights set forth in the enumerated powers. Is that it?"

    Yes.

    "Using the line of reasoning you have followed nothing after the "foregoing" passage is within their rights."

    I never said that. It also says, "and all other Powers vested by this Constitution". I just asked you if you understood what foregoing meant.

    "Where in the enumerated powers does it say that Congress shall have the right to amend The Constitution? Please point me to that power that needs to be expressly stated to be valid according to your dogma. "

    Article 5 of the Constitution.

    Any other questions?

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

    Yeah...why does The Necessary and Proper clause not apply equally? You still have never answered that...and have changed your position 2-3 times.

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

    What voices in your head are you arguing with? My position has been the same since the beginning and it is quite simple - you have to follow the Constitution. That's it.

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

    Yeah...and The Constitution says:

    The Congress shall have power [...] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...

    People in the "Tea Party" seem to like to say that they want to adhere to the principles in The Constitution and CONVENIENTLY ignore the part about the passage above being EXPRESSLY stated in Article 1, Section 8. Hence you get people like O'Donnell stating that, "It doesn't state it in The Constitution" and that only powers expressly named are valid. One of these expressly-named powers is The Necessary and Proper Clause.

    It IS really quite simple...you are right Tim. You either believe that the interpretation of The Constitution that we currently have is necessary and proper to carry out the laws set forth as implied powers OR you believe that everything has to be written down expressly or it isn't valid. The 2nd argument breaks down very quickly as has been clearly demonstrated.

    THAT is what O'Donnell was purported to be claiming I guess...and it is idiotic as you have now finally conceded.

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

    Once again, you are only using part of a sentence out of context. the full clause reads:

    "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."

    "the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution" That means only the Powers allowed to the Federal government per the Constitution. There is no provision for "implied powers" here. It could not be more clear that this provision of for the specified Powers. That's why there's a capital P being used for the word "Powers" in this clause.

    This is consistent with what I've said from the beginning.

    Remind us again how stupid you think Christine O'Donnell is.

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

    Do you know what "and" means? Here ya go:

    Definition of "and"

    Everything after the "and" is a separate set of powers that are expressly cited. Like:

    1 and 2

    The government has this power AND this other power. It is really quite simple.

    What you have been saying is that things have to be expressly written down in The Constitution in order for them to be the law of the land at the national level. Where does The Constitution EXPRESSLY say that we can declare war on NORTH KOREA? Please point me to this direct passage. If it isn't written down expressly it doesn't apply!

  • Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    Wow, aren't you guys getting tired of this argument? Do you think you can both agree that:

    1. The separation of church and state refers to the phrase in the constitution that you have both partially or fully cited? And O'Donnell was not aware of it?

    2. That people do stupid things throughout their lives, including as teenagers? And they often change their minds over time and become wiser over time? So it is more important to look at their current views while also recognizing that what they say during a campaign may not be the current view?

    3. Any document has to be read to render its sentences meaningful, which means that one can be neither too literal nor too expansive in reading the document? That means that not everything has to be expressly stated, such as which specific countries one can go to war against, but at the same time we should not go on expanding the role of the federal government under the interstate commerce clause.

    I really do not know anything about O'Donnell other than what I have read in this thread and two youtube videos of her so I am not going to comment on the subject of this thread. From what you guys have said about her, she does appear to be someone I might hesitate to vote for, but I also realize that one cannot form an opinion of someone based on a single thread or a couple of youtube videos.

    BTW, I do need to agree with Tom Cullen's post about classic liberalism being very different from the left-wing people who refer to themselves as liberals. Fortunately for us, English has not been so corrupted in most of the world and "liberal" is used to describe a political ideology that most Americans refer to as "libertarian."

    I think the bigger picture in politics right now is whether we want to vote for untested and possibly stupid people who want to shrink our government or whether we would like to vote for the tried and tested smart people who want to continue expanding it. I think I will take a shot with the former group because the latter have proven themselves to be pretty bad for the country over the past few decades. of course, it will be ideal if we could have smart people who want to shrink the government, of which I am sure the Tea Party has some.

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

    I think this country is slightly right of center and that is the best course for all. I am for smaller government and less of their intervention in our lives. Unfortunately there is no good party to vote for if this is what you believe in because "conservatives" take an increasingly expansionary view of what rights they should take away from us with respect to many things. Attempts to legislate morality are commonplace on the right now.

    I don't have a problem with the agenda of SOME of the "Tea Party" folks. What I do have a problem with is a bunch of blathering morons running for office that repeatedly lie about college degrees/certifications and dabble in witchcraft in their spare time.

    I also have a problem with the fanatical adherence to an overly constricted view of the Constitution. That isn't just right of center...it is ridiculous.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
    Do you know what "and" means? Here ya go:

    Definition of "and"

    Everything after the "and" is a separate set of powers that are expressly cited. Like:

    1 and 2

    The government has this power AND this other power. It is really quite simple.

    What you have been saying is that things have to be expressly written down in The Constitution in order for them to be the law of the land at the national level. Where does The Constitution EXPRESSLY say that we can declare war on NORTH KOREA? Please point me to this direct passage. If it isn't written down expressly it doesn't apply!

    ""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."

    The Powers enumerated in the Constitution before this statement AND and all powers enumerated ("vested") by the the Constitution. Your "and" argument doesn't change anything. It's simply saying everything previously written and everything else written. It still has to follow the Constitution. My position has not changed.

  • Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y

    Bryan, I am not really into the political scene these days but I just checked the Tea Party website and it seems like you and I would both agree on their core values, which they have stated as fiscal responsibility, small government and free markets.

    So are you against them because you think they have the wrong people to implement their core values or do you think they do not really stand for their core values and are merely posturing? Or, perhaps, that they do not truly understand their core values and will end up doing something stupid thinking that they are furthering their core values?

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

    I am against idiots running...plain and simple. Yeah...I am sure I do agree with many of the elements of the platform. The fact that people defend lunatics like O'Donnell when she is obviously unfit harms "the party" and the movement as a whole. I also think that nut jobs on other ends of the spectrum harm their respective parties as well.

    It is quite obvious Tim and I aren't going to agree on this point. That is fine...people can draw their own conclusions.

    //Begin quote
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers
    //End quote

    This cannot be more clear to me. All laws necessary and proper to execute the enumerated powers. How this is not exceedingly clear that additional powers can be vested is beyond me. Fortunately the history books agree with me. Ranting witchcraft advocates don't agree...fine with me.

    How do we declare war on North Korea Tim? It isn't cited overtly in the Constitution.

  • Flipper · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 973 posts · 679 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Vikram C.:
    Wow, aren't you guys getting tired of this argument? Do you think you can both agree that:

    1. The separation of church and state refers to the phrase in the constitution that you have both partially or fully cited? And O'Donnell was not aware of it?

    I believe Tim has mentioned (maybe it was another thread) that she was fully aware of the wording of the First Amendment, just that it doesn't actually say that they need to be separate. It simply says (as I interpret) that the government can't stop the creation or expression of different religions.

    Personally, I'd be terrified of letting the (any) church run the country, but from what I've read of the founding fathers, they seem to be very content letting the government run "under God."

    I'm not a constitutional law major though, so maybe Tim can correct me if I'm misunderstanding what he wrote.

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

    "1. The separation of church and state refers to the phrase in the constitution that you have both partially or fully cited? And O'Donnell was not aware of it?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrnHxXn8zo

    When you guys are ready to think for yourselves, you let us know.

    The worst part is....Coons is the one who went to law school.

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