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
153 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
  • Flipper · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 973 posts · 679 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:

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

    I'm not sure how you read that to mean that you can forever expand the government. It simply says laws can be created to MAINTAIN the government as it was written.

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

    That's more Masonic tradition of recognizing a higher power, but not requiring you to specify which. The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge in the 1940s but the recognition of "God" within the founding documents was to show a recognition of a monotheistic deity.

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

    Tom...yes.

    I have asked the question darn near 10 times now. Last time...any of the "must be in the document" folks can answer:

    How do we declare war on North Korea if this right is not EXPRESSLY written into the Constitution?

    Any takers?

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

    Tom, that's interesting. Here's something else that I find interesting - in many countries, including large ones such as India, China, Russia and the CIS, etc., liberals are the ones who want to introduce freer markets while conservatives are the ones who want to have tight political and economic control by the government. The liberals also want to get the government out of people's social lives.

    So I think classic Liberalism is alive and well, except that in the U.S. it goes by a different name - Libertarianism.

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

    @Marc:

    Where did I ever state that we should interpret it to say that we can forever expand the government? Please point me to this passage.

    Where do you see language to say that something has to be EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution to be a right vested in the federal government?

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

    I have asked the question darn near 10 times now. Last time...any of the "must be in the document" folks can answer:

    How do we declare war on North Korea if this right is not EXPRESSLY written into the Constitution?

    Any takers?

    Article I, Section VIII of the constitution gives congress the power to declare war.

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

    Yeah...it does...but you have to INFER that it is okay to declare war on North Korea. That specific passage is not overtly stated in the Constitution. Consequently, it cannot be utilized....it must be written down.

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

    Congress can declare war on North Korea or Serbia if they want to and it follows the Constitution.

  • Real Estate Investor · Elkhorn, WI · Member since 2008 · 453 posts · 104 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
    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.

    funny how you got so upset when you thought Tim called you a name, yet you continue to call people idiots an morons for nothing more than disagreeing with you. Do you realize what you are doing or are you attempting satire?

  • Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Marc Freislinger:
    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?"

    ...

    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
    @Marc:

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

    "Jaywalking" is not a movie; it is a segment that occasionally appears on Jay Leno's TV show, where Jay Leno walks on the street and asks passersby questions that are rather simple in nature - and yet many have no inkling of the correct answer.

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by rich23s:
    funny how you got so upset when you thought Tim called you a name, yet you continue to call people idiots an morons for nothing more than disagreeing with you. Do you realize what you are doing or are you attempting satire?

    For the record I didn't call him anything but unqualified to call other people stupid - using his own words against him. What amazes me is how it is the ones who are factually wrong that are calling everyone else "stupid". I guess though that when your facts are completely wrong, the truth would seem "stupid" to you.

  • Lexington, KY · Member since 2010 · 315 posts · 133 votes
    15y

    Rand Paul for president

  • 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.

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

    Mike M,
    You just created the second vote I had the pleasure of casting today.

    Tim

  • Altus, OK · Member since 2008 · 2k+ posts · 690 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    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.

    Don't forget Hillary Clinton.

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

    I don't know, Hillary's pretty sharp. I don't agree with her and I think she's pretty conniving, but I have to admit that watching her the past 2 years I respect her as a shark. Aside from the flap with the Russian reset button, she's flown under the radar when the current administration has pulled it's biggest blunders.

    Now she has every excuse to bail at her leisure. She stayed on board longer than O's chief of staff and can politically use that to show her dedication when she bails to run solo. She's no idiot or Bill's coaching her big time.

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

    I agree Tim. While I do not agree with Hillary Clinton on hardly anything, at least she comes across as intelligent and experienced. Bryan Hancock used the phrase "blathering morons" and I was just listing those who fit the bill.

    I don't agree with Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Michael Bennett, and others, but at least they come across as someone who at least have some intelligence.

    On another level, who would you rather look at, Christine O'Donnell or Chris Coons? :roll:

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    \On another level, who would you rather look at, Christine O'Donnell or Chris Coons? :roll:

    I hope she wins for a host of reasons, not the least of which so that douchebag Maher gets reminded of how commercially nonviable he is, except where people accidentally find his show while wondering what happened to Silk Stalkings.

  • Altus, OK · Member since 2008 · 2k+ posts · 690 votes
    15y

    Hillary intelligent hahahahaha that's like saying Bin Laden is Time man of the year material.

    There is nothing smart about that woman I mean look who she married. I wouldn't trust that woman to wipe my dog's rear end if it came down to it much less have her as SOS.

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

    Where did I get upset? I can tell you for a fact that I really couldn't care less what Tim thinks about the Constitution. This crazy dogma is a big part of why the country is so divided and we can't get anything constructive done to fix things!

    It was pointless to keep debating this topic because it is obvious that nobody will change their mind. If you interpret things to the letter in one area of the Constitution you have to do the same in other areas or it is silly. You can't say that something isn't said in one place explicitly and then infer something elsewhere. Dumb.

    It doesn't really matter anyway...things have been interpreted how I have stated for a reason, despite what the "experts" on this thread think.

  • Joshua D.Pro Member
    BiggerPockets Founder · HI · Member since 2008 · 16k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    15y

    Can't we all get along? Seriously -- please feel free to disagree, but the name calling and other nonsense needs to stop.

    While we give a little (ok a LOT) more leeway on the political forums, I'll ask that you guys keep your opinions to the issues and candidates instead of one another.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Seminole, FL · Member since 2010 · 859 posts · 316 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Mr_Investor:
    Hillary intelligent hahahahaha that's like saying Bin Laden is Time man of the year material.

    .

    Hitler was Time magazine man of the year. For real! Google it if you dont believe.

  • Real Estate Investor · Elkhorn, WI · Member since 2008 · 453 posts · 104 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
    Where did I get upset? I can tell you for a fact that I really couldn't care less what Tim thinks about the Constitution. This crazy dogma is a big part of why the country is so divided and we can't get anything constructive done to fix things!

    It was pointless to keep debating this topic because it is obvious that nobody will change their mind. If you interpret things to the letter in one area of the Constitution you have to do the same in other areas or it is silly. You can't say that something isn't said in one place explicitly and then infer something elsewhere. Dumb.

    It doesn't really matter anyway...things have been interpreted how I have stated for a reason, despite what the "experts" on this thread think.

    So you think Ms. O'Donnell is stupid because...
    -her religious beliefs
    -doesn't believe in evolution
    -isn't qualified for the position

    Why not say she is stupid because of the color of her skin? What would be the difference? Also, please advise us of what the qualifications are for the position. Does she not qualify for them? How about Obama...was he qualified for his elected position?

    You continue to follow FAR left wing tactics by name calling without backing up your claims. You have yet to make one good argument about how she is dumb, stupid, a moron, etc. You've called more names in this thread than most people do their entire adult life.

    Your comment about "experts" is hysterical. This is because it mirrors comments by other left wing fringe people on this forum in the healthcare debate...after they lost the debate. Lose the debate, then claim that everyone else thinks they're experts. Another fruitless argument. To be clear, no one on here has claimed to be an expert. Are you an expert? Please advise so that we know in the future.

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

    My experience with a previous thread that got a little heated:

    1. The right-wing guys like to call people who disagree with them left-wing, far left, fringe people, socialist, liberal, etc.

    2. The left-wing guys like to call people who disagree with them morons, idiots, nut jobs, etc.

    3. The likelihood of the two sides agreeing or convincing the other is about the same as winning the lottery.

    So why not state one's position initially, clarify it if something is truly not clear, and then leave it for readers who are interested in the topic to read it?

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

    My experience in previous threads Vikram is you come in with a cloak of nonpartisan peace and then try to insert your liberal viewpoints and if you're called on it bemoan that we all just can't love one another.

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