Does anyone else find this Democrat offensive?

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

The difference is that the "gentleman" is a lunatic. I believe that he is troubled in many ways. That he is simply unstable perhaps. Mrs. Bachmann is not. She is merely the latest "whipping post" of the general media as she is a political conservative woman. That is something which is not supposed to exist, just like a Black Republican (Dr. Alan Keyes), a political conservative gay man (George Takai), a transgendered politically conservative (Julia Romans), or Hispanic Republican (Gloria Estefan)... This is the modus the media had with Palin. It had nothing to do with ability, but everything with ideology. Leftist crazies, like Jessie Jackson Jr., for example, who say all kinds of outlandish things, are hardly ever covered. This is an unbecoming duplicity.

You forgot flame thrower....Anne Coulter.

Jessie is still paying for his "Himey" remark.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

You forgot flame thrower....Anne Coulter.

Heee heee... yes. She too gets lambasting. I've attended an appearance of hers in Wichita Falls. She has some interesting opinions. She certainly isn't crazy. I hate to debate her - she is extremely smart (and opinionated). Although I generally do not agree with her on many things, I was quite impressed by the presentation.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Heee heee... yes. She too gets lambasting. I've attended an appearance of hers in Wichita Falls. She has some interesting opinions. She certainly isn't crazy. I hate to debate her - she is extremely smart (and opinionated). Although I generally do not agree with her on many things, I was quite impressed by the presentation.

Yeh, she's a real cutie.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

On March 16, 2011, discussing the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Coulter, citing research into radiation hormesis, wrote that there was "burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine."

You don't actually believe that people just criticize her because she's conservative, do ya?

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yeh, she's a real cutie.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

What's wrong with that one? It says in the Qur'an that infidels should either convert or be killed. What is wrong with applying it to Islamic countries as they are driven by these religious beliefs?

I really don't think she was serious, as have seen the footage where she said it, and the discussion centered around fundamentalist Islam.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

This is the modus the media had with Palin. It had nothing to do with ability, but everything with ideology.

Well, I can agree it didn't have anything to do with ability. That would imply she has some.

"The Liberal Media" is really getting over-played as a right-wing excuse. Palin is a perfect example. She said things that are absurd for someone running for Vice President. What magazines do you read? "All of them". What do you think of the Bush Docterine? "What do you mean, his view of the world?" No, not his view of the world, his frighteninigly broad policy that he used to justify an invasion of another country. Something you might want to be vaguely familiar with if you want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And "the media" made her look bad? The media didn't have to. She took care of that herself.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

What's wrong with that one? It says in the Qur'an that infidels should either convert or be killed. What is wrong with applying it to Islamic countries as they are driven by these religious beliefs?

This is very similar to when you said we should have an immigration policy like Mexico- which sounds a lot like Iran. I don't think cherry-picking policy from the worst and lest successful countries on Earth is a great model. Kinda like asking Etheopia for a great plan to deal with domestic hunger.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

This is very similar to when you said we should have an immigration policy like Mexico- which sounds a lot like Iran. I don't think cherry-picking policy from the worst and lest successful countries on Earth is a great model. Kinda like asking Etheopia for a great plan to deal with domestic hunger.

+1. Nineteen @ssholes commit an horrific act of terrorism. I understand that much.

As a result, we should invade the countries of the world that are home to 1.5 Billion Muslims (almost 25% of the world's population), kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity? And you wonder, KG, why people criticize people who think like this? People who advocate such actions should be societally shunned, not paraded on to a (pseudo) news network to pontificate on issues of national importance.

She should be shunned so thoroughly that the only employment available to her would involve her keeping her mouth shut. Dancing in a strip club, perhaps.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I would argue that neither are good for their respective chosen parties. What's most troubling to me is the fact that such lunatics can actually have followings in this country (though Bachmann's appears larger). It's a sad commentary on how ignorant and willing to be misled many of our countrymen are.

Yes, I know. Obama sort of proved that point.

[painter]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

The difference is that the "gentleman" is a lunatic. I believe that he is troubled in many ways. That he is simply unstable perhaps. Mrs. Bachmann is not. She is merely the latest "whipping post" of the general media as she is a political conservative woman. That is something which is not supposed to exist, just like a Black Republican (Dr. Alan Keyes), a political conservative gay man (George Takai), a transgendered politically conservative (Julia Romans), or Hispanic Republican (Gloria Estefan)... This is the modus the media had with Palin. It had nothing to do with ability, but everything with ideology. Leftist crazies, like Jessie Jackson Jr., for example, who say all kinds of outlandish things, are hardly ever covered. This is an unbecoming duplicity.

Party politics is all about ideology.
I believe we choose by the ability to communicate and to a degree...charisma. certainly not by experience or agenda.
Perhaps that will change. We can only hope.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by painter

Party politics is all about ideology.
I believe we choose by the ability to communicate and to a degree...charisma. certainly not by experience or agenda.
Perhaps that will change. We can only hope.

I'm not completely following here, but I'll try.

Are you suggesting that party politics is about ideology, but that electoral politics is not? We might be close to agreement. Most in a party will share a similar ideology - to a greater of lesser degree depending on the party. Because most voters are affiliated with a party, I would suggest that most voters vote on the basis of ideology.

However, it is the 20-30% who aren't affiliated with a party who more often than not decide elections. I would expect that ideology is less important to that portion of the electorate.

Two things I don't understand: How much do you distinguish between agenda and ideology? I don't see a lot of difference. Next, are you suggesting that voters should rely more on experience and agenda (perhaps including ideology) than they do on the ability to communicate and/or charisma? As a general rule, I would agree with that too.

For me, Ideology/agenda are the most important factors to consider in casting a vote. It just makes sense to consider a candidate's ideas about the proper role of government before placing him or her in that government. (The ability to lead and communicate are also important, because an unrealized ideology doesn't do anyone much good.)

Regards,

D-Ray