The Tea Party has officially lost it

You still don't get it. You all still don't. For Tea Party members, there's only one thing that matters. And Christine O'Donnell will vote the right way for that one thing, and that's the only thing that counts.

You all can do nothing but watch.


True, everyone loves to watch a good trainwreck, I suppose.
 


This lady is a whole new breed of politician: The Lolcat Candidate. "Vote 4 me, I can lowr yer taxez."

Nobody notices the obvious two-faced pandering? She's claiming a belief the world is 6,000 years old to cater to the Christian fundies, yet has dabbled in witchcraft.

Why doesn't she just cast a spell on her opponent?

See, I thought the whole 'women should cater to men like in Lord of the Rings' yet run for state office was weird.
 
You've got to be kidding me. Do I really have to go back through your old posts and bring up all the things you've bitched about Obama doing?

And you seriously think this woman is going to cut government? The same woman who has been using donor money to pay for her rent? Come on. I just... come on.

Sarah Palin pulled the same type of shit. Tea Party people say they want smaller government, but the biggest issue to them is whether the candidate loves Jesus. Look at the fucking Glen Beck rally.
 
True, everyone loves to watch a good trainwreck, I suppose.

I don't mind a good train-wreck, but not when it's for mission-critical stuff. Train-wrecks in politics have been the status quo for too long.

The role of a politician (in today's status quo terms) is best summed up by this Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quote:
Chapter 28

To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

There was one about, "the role of a politician is to distract the public from what's actually going on," but I can't find the actual phrasing.
 
And Coons is better?

Neither of them is good, and neither will cut government. O'Donnell might cut fiscally in certain areas, but then you'll see her support all kinds of ridiculous spending like on abstinence education programs.

Can't you acknowledge that both of them are shit candidates? This whole "well imo she's the lesser of two evils!" bullshit is what got us into the mess we're in.
 
Sounds like some run-of-the mill experimentation to me just like any young person.

I didn't realize that so many kids today were going on dates at "blood-stained satanic alters." Maybe it has to do with the movie Twilight or something.


I think I saw this when it was first on MTV :

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UFn_DoaSKw"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
 
And that my friend is what I'm talking about. Instead of saying, "No, I'm not okay with the fact that she stole money," you say that. I didn't ask about Coons, I asked a simple yes/no question. The only thing that matters to you is her affiliation.

Is that the latest leftist fabrication? You can generate all kinds of expenses as a candidate. One man's theft is another man's legitimate deductible.
 
Is that the latest leftist fabrication? You can generate all kinds of expenses as a candidate. One man's theft is another man's legitimate deductible.

facepalm.jpg


I give up, you're officially retarded.