Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on September 27, 2010, 11:17:36 PM
-
Ok.
For Christ's sake.
Republicans.
You can not be serious.
Bush? Ok, bad apple.
Palin? Getting ridiculous.
Now Christine O'Donnell?
It's like you guys are just trying as hard as possible to distance yourself from rational, sane, normal people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQ1DBhNe_4
-
Be fair here Chad.....also post all of Biden, Pelosi and Obama's gaffes. If were gonna look at being far from rational, lets look at ALL sides. Is this girl seriously a threat to the liberals? If she is as dumb and irrational as the MSM say she is, it seems to me that they have nothing to worry about thus they would find something else to talk about on a nightly basis (yes, Im talking to you John Stewart and Keith Olbermann).
-
Be fair here Chad.....also post all of Biden, Pelosi and Obama's gaffes. If were gonna look at being far from rational, lets look at ALL sides.
How many times have the three above said something stupid?
We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it. Srsly? WTF? Your side wrote a bill and you don't even know what in the fuck was written in it.
57 states, My Uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, The waters will start to rise and the earth will start to heal. Tornado's killed 10,000 in Kansas, total deaths = 12. The Selma march where his parents met and he was born as a direct result. Oh yeah, he was born 4 years prior to the march.Several others.
I won't even begin to list Biden's, there are too many. He is worse gaffe machine than Bush.
Lets not forget about Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. She had some nice ones.
Now saying that, yeah, O'Donnell has made some serious gaffes, but nothing worse than some of the above mentioned.
-
How many times have the three above said something stupid?
We have to pass this bill to find out what's in it. Srsly? WTF? Your side wrote a bill and you don't even know what in the phuk was written in it.
57 states, My Uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, The waters will start to rise and the earth will start to heal. Tornado's killed 10,000 in Kansas, total deaths = 12. The Selma march where his parents met and he was born as a direct result. Oh yeah, he was born 4 years prior to the march.Several others.
I won't even begin to list Biden's, there are too many. He is worse gaffe machine than Bush.
Lets not forget about Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. She had some nice ones.
Now saying that, yeah, O'Donnell has made some serious gaffes, but nothing worse than some of the above mentioned.
Be fair here Chad.....also post all of Biden, Pelosi and Obama's gaffes. If were gonna look at being far from rational, lets look at ALL sides. Is this girl seriously a threat to the liberals? If she is as dumb and irrational as the MSM say she is, it seems to me that they have nothing to worry about thus they would find something else to talk about on a nightly basis (yes, Im talking to you John Stewart and Keith Olbermann).
Well said the both of you but you forgot to mention the Libertarian's wet dream candidate cum* Tea Party supporter Rand Paul saying he would not have voted for nor supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on Rachel Maddow's show not two days after winning the nomination. He went on to dig his hole deeper saying that he would support it's repeal!
BTW, I know Rand has an "R" after his name but he's a Libertarian in all but affiliation. I thought that I could possibly support him but after having said that he's lost any support from me. Racist SOB.
For those keeping score (AUChizad) I'm sure I posted something critical of him on the X at the time**.
*That's Latin for "together with".
**Edit. See here: http://www.tigersx.com/forum/the_sga/one_man_six_votes_9719.msg132270.html#msg132270
-
Well said the both of you but you forgot to mention the Libertarian's wet dream candidate cum* Tea Party supporter Rand Paul saying he would not have voted for nor supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on Rachel Maddow's show not two days after winning the nomination. He went on to dig his hole deeper saying that he would support it's repeal!
BTW, I know Rand has an "R" after his name but he's a Libertarian in all but affiliation. I thought that I could possibly support him but after having said that he's lost any support from me. Racist SOB.
For those keeping score (AUChizad) I'm sure I posted something critical of him on the X at the time**.
*That's Latin for "together with".
**Edit. See here: http://www.tigersx.com/forum/the_sga/one_man_six_votes_9719.msg132270.html#msg132270
Did you hear his explanation on what was actually meant by his words? He actually said THIS afterwards....
"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," he said. "I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s. And it stems from things that I said, you know, had been going on, really, 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form," he responded. "I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? . . . I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires."
His only crime with Maddow was perhaps using poor wording to attempt to describe his view. I'm surprised at you for throwing the R word around so loosely.
-
Did you hear his explanation on what was actually meant by his words? He actually said THIS afterwards....
"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," he said. "I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s. And it stems from things that I said, you know, had been going on, really, 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form," he responded. "I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? . . . I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires."
His only crime with Maddow was perhaps using poor wording to attempt to describe his view. I'm surprised at you for throwing the R word around so loosely.
I did hear his windy explanation but if he had not been critical of it in the first place he would not have had to 'splain! When someone asks you (especially if there's an "R" after your name) if you would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the answer is "Yes". End of story.
His crime, if you will, was being critical of the Civil Rights Act in the first place. He could have avoided this whole situation and the ensuing back-peddling of the explanation that few would hear and fewer understand in this sound-byte driven world if he'd answered the question correctly and succinctly.
I suspect that what he was trying to criticize was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but he's apparently too ignorant to tell the difference so he fell into Maddow's trap. The Voting Rights Act does indeed need to be revisited, criticized, and updated but that's another story...or thread...
-
I did hear his windy explanation but if he had not been critical of it in the first place he would not have had to 'splain! When someone asks you (especially if there's an "R" after your name) if you would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the answer is "Yes". End of story.
His crime, if you will, was being critical of the Civil Rights Act in the first place. He could have avoided this whole situation and the ensuing back-peddling of the explanation that few would hear and fewer understand in this sound-byte driven world if he'd answered the question correctly and succinctly.
I suspect that what he was trying to criticize was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but he's apparently too ignorant to tell the difference so he fell into Maddow's trap. The Voting Rights Act does indeed need to be revisited, criticized, and updated but that's another story...or thread...
I agree..... truly a novice mistake as he hasn't been in politics very long. Actually, I think his biggest mistake was going on a MSM program - period.
-
I agree..... truly a novice mistake as he hasn't been in politics very long. Actually, I think his biggest mistake was going on a MSM program - period.
Fair enough, GH. In hindsight it is probably not completely fair of me to be so critical of him on this particular mistake, goodness knows we all make them.
-
Fair enough, GH. In hindsight it is probably not completely fair of me to be so critical of him on this particular mistake, goodness knows we all make them.
Racist...
-
If she'd show her boobies I'd vote for her.