Christine O'Donnel would not help Jews evade Nazi persecution

Originally posted by stephanies-chase
Lets be real...this lady wouldn't be hiding jews. She sounds like one of those fanatics who would kill someone because god told her to. I can't stand to listen to her.

Rebublic Broadcasting

During the 2006 race, Ms. O’Donnell agreed with two other Republican candidates that Iran was intent on developing nuclear weapons and that their government had actually benefited from the war with Iraq due to its close ties with Iraqi Shiite leaders. She was, however, the only Republican candidate to go one step further and assert that the U.S. should consider military action against Iran. She stated “You can’t negotiate with the Devil” and also asserted that China has a “carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America.” No, that wasn’t Sarah Palin saying those things…but it may just as well have been. Keep in mind that ‘establishment’ incumbent Mike Castle was among those three “Republican candidates,” and even he was not ready to put his full support behind an attack on Iran. That’s not to say that it isn’t nice to see Castle go—good riddance. But, here is a question that I’ve posed once before: What are we getting in return?

If this woman still embodies the kind of pro-war ideology that she spouts in her previous rhetoric—she will no doubt become a useful idiot to opportunistic war makers on Capitol Hill—who will exploit her religious beliefs to advance their imperialist agenda. Upon her arrival in Washington, the Israeli lobby and the defense industry will routinely court her. Give the charming, fatherly Henry Kissinger ½ hour alone with this naïve young woman, and she will be eating out of the palm of his hand and going out of her way to send your sons and daughters off to die in holy, Christian missions of conquest against the evil Muslim hordes

It's interesting there is so much attention on one woman in one race...

reply to post by buddhasystem

That is a better argument.
I think you would do much better arguing with material like this, than with the Nazi crap. The author of that quote makes some assumptions that are frankly reasonable.
If you look at some of the responses, many are from people that are not her fans. They are just tired of people distorting what people say, to fit an agenda.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

That is a better argument.
I think you would do much better arguing with material like this, than with the Nazi crap.

But there is a connection, as I hope you see.

I myself don't give a damn about her personal preferences as to how she wants to please God. In case of Hitler vs Jews she wanted to do it in a particular way, and as a private citizen -- so what. If, however, she gets elected and applies same logic to governance, that's bad news for America. And that is my real concern.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

That is a better argument.
I think you would do much better arguing with material like this, than with the Nazi crap. The author of that quote makes some assumptions that are frankly reasonable.

If not a bit hyperbolic. Still, at least it focuses on actual issues, not hypotheticals with no right answer meant to trap someone.

I want to know how much money she is getting from Saudi-connected lobbies.

The Republicans just lost any chance at this Senate seat and they know it. They have lost a few that they might otherwise have won because they Tea Party candidates just turned out to be too goofy, and they had a long record of bizarre statements in the past that couldn't be concealed. Sharron Angle in Nevada is another one of these, as is Rand Paul in Kentucky. They don't let these people talk to the media in any way and don't let them go near any crowds unless they are packed with friendlies. They hardly let them say anything but just hire Karl Rove and his billionaire squad to attack the opposition and hope that will let them squeak by in November.

reply to post by witness63

This is what I DON'T get, is comments like yours.
The T.E.A. Party is THE reason the GOP is doing so well. Careful control of the candidates by professionals and lawyers, giving them "talking points", is why we are in this mess to begin with.
O'Donnell lets people know what they would be getting if people vote for her. Can we get that from the other candidates please????
Maybe we need some honest, straight talking folks on both sides so we can get an idea of their true character.
Scru Rove and his kind.

reply to post by buddhasystem


The clip has ALREADY been posted here: Thread

The topic has been beaten to death already.

No matter what the contexts or whatever she was trying to imply, it is never okay to condone outright killing any any particular race no matter what. This is just another example why public officials should not be public officials. We need the common American in charge.

C'mon Christine the only reason you're attracted to nazi stuff and religious extremism is because you like your men big, blond, brutal and dumb!
PS I'm all in favor for women as leaders, but how come only the crazy-ass ones end up as politicians? Maybe it's because all the cool women have something better to do than to become a professional liar and control-freak. Talk about self-selecting professions...

reply to post by buddhasystem


i just love the very last paragraph of the link you posted in response to me.DID YOU EVEN READ IT?

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints with the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Election Commission against O'Donnell, charging that more than $20,000 of O'Donnell's spending in 2009 and 2010 was illegal because O'Donnell was no longer a candidate.

hello 2009 and 2010
You and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington do realize that it is currently 2010 and any money she spent in 2009 and 2010 would be for this campaign which she is still very much a candidate!

and you wonder why she isn't answering questions about it because its a poor attempt by some liberals to attack her Over a BS allegation! Show me real proof that she mis handled or spent campaign funds on personal stuff.

That's right you can't. just admit this woman scares you. you and your liberal friends keep attacking her past. she was young and not as mature when she did or said the things you guys keep bringing up. Don't think that maybe just maybe she might have grown up and matured a little since then and that just maybe her beliefs are a bit different now?

the simple fact of the matter is people like yourself have helped her win her primary race and now she'll probably win the Nov. election. All because you guys couldn't keep your mouths shut and quit giving her free press. everytime you guys say anything about her you just refresh her name in peoples minds and lets face it when most americans go to the polls its not what a candidate says or promises or their past that gets them elected. its name reconigtion! people vote for the name the recognize! So keep up the good work there my friend your helping to elect a person that probably shouldn't be elected.

Oh yeah BTW the only time i actually called you personally a lib was at the very end of my post. I guess you can't distinguish between yourself and your liberal friends. there is a difference but if you can't understand that then i'm sorry i can't help you.

Also what conservatives that call her past checkered are you talking about? Karl Rove? He's hardly a conservative.

Clearly you have no clue what ad hominem attacks are because every post in this thread by you is an ad hominem on every poster in this threat and to Ms. O'Donnell See how easy it is to throw around the term ad hominem.

clearly you have no real proof to back up the claims this woman has done anything wrong in the past. Clearly your afraid of her, Clearly you will believe anything and everything that someone says about her aslong as it fits with your personal agenda. The difference between you and me... i could really care less if this bimbo IMO gets eleceted to the Senate or not.

reply to post by whatukno


That is why I would plant the vehicle at a Nazi collaborators and sympathizers house. Ever read what happened to the French that collaborated with the Nazis after France was liberated?

You did not miss that part did you?

Originally posted by BlessedLore
No matter what the contexts or whatever she was trying to imply, it is never okay to condone outright killing any any particular race no matter what.

Exactly WHERE did she 'condone killng'??

Geeeze .. what is it with you spinners??? A few years back the woman said she believed lies to be a sin and therefore she wouldn't lie, not even to save lives. How that equates to 'condoning killing' is absurd.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


What about the mess?

Shooting two men in the head will make a mess wherever you did it.

Moving their car and shooting it won't help you.

*On the upside, if you got caught - you could blame it on the jews you were hiding; they have motive and how were you to know they had a gun... unless they had broken into your house at gunpoint. Amirite?

Then you could live to pwn AZIs another day. With your deagle brand eagle.

Originally posted by Mercenary2007

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints with the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Election Commission against O'Donnell, charging that more than $20,000 of O'Donnell's spending in 2009 and 2010 was illegal because O'Donnell was no longer a candidate.

hello 2009 and 2010
You and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington do realize that it is currently 2010 and any money she spent in 2009 and 2010 would be for this campaign which she is still very much a candidate!

You seem to be wanting to bend the law to your own liking. It's a different campaign and you can't use funds the way she did. That simple. I can have an open bottle of vodka in my fridge and it's legal. Same open container in my car when I'm driving it, is not. Same bottle, different circumstances. She broke the law, no matter how it makes you squirm and try to deny it.

I guess God will provide the answer if it ever came down to a vote to implement Marshall law
I guess God will provide the answer if it ever came down to a vote to put people into FEMA Camps
I guess God will provide answer if it ever came down to a vote to purge certain elements from society
I guess God will provide answer if it ever came down to a vote to tag everyone with RFID
I guess God will provide the answer if it ever came down to a vote to disclose what actually happened on 911
I guess God will provide the answer if it ever came down to a vote to shred the constitution and install a right wing dictator

You see where I am going with this. What if she was the deciding vote on any of these hypothetical's but possible's

I do not trust anyone to hold office and make important decisions and craft law that puts blind faith into a higher power making decisions for them, they need to think for themselves.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by BlessedLore
No matter what the contexts or whatever she was trying to imply, it is never okay to condone outright killing any any particular race no matter what.

Exactly WHERE did she 'condone killng'??

Geeeze .. what is it with you spinners??? A few years back the woman said she believed lies to be a sin and therefore she wouldn't lie, not even to save lives. How that equates to 'condoning killing' is absurd.

dictionary.reference.com...

2.
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

By admitting you're hiding jews to people who clearly want to kill them, you are condoning the killing of them. It's not hard to understand, so why you have trouble doing so is beyond me. So if someone who wanted to kill your family asked me where they were, and I told them, how would that not be condoning killing?