Newsflash: college students aren't "kids"; they're old enough to get married and have kids of their own, or go get blown up in wars.
Additional breaking newsflash: nobody with half a brain cares whether O'Donnell did or did not practice "witchcraft"; we care that she still seems to believe that "witches" exist, even though she's purporting to be stable enough to hold a position in government.
Wiccans, by the way, do not practice blood sacrifice; according to her own statement about "blood" being "involved" in her "dabblings", what she actually "dabbled" in was not witchcraft but satanism.
I still don't care; it was the 80s. Everybody and their grandma were listening to headbanger music and carving pentagrams into their chests.
Again, the problem is that she does not brush it off as a ridiculous 80s cultural trend.
She seems to believe it was somehow real.
And that's pretty funny. :lol:
But what about her financial irresponsibility? That's a very adult subject. And Republicans are supposed to be big on it. Embraced anyway?
She was on Politically Incorrect when she said all this, right? Have you ever watched it? To get invited on 22 times I think you would have to be somewhat entertaining, but not necessarilly to be taken seriously.
She was on Politically Incorrect when she said all this, right? Have you ever watched it? To get invited on 22 times I think you would have to be somewhat entertaining, but not necessarilly to be taken seriously.
There are a lot of Americans who can relate to her financial problems.
And would you want those american to be a senator?
And would you want those american to be a senator?
given the alternative...
we'll see
look at the schoolyard taunts above
keep THOSE comin, she'll win
didn't you folks have moms?
Yes we do, and as much as I love my mother she would not make a good senator. She is not good with money, but has not dabbled in witchcraft
The part about not to be taken seriously is very correct
She would have been on PI because loons are entertaining, and she appears to be a loon or at least was
There are a lot of Americans who can relate to her financial problems.
Well considering what party she represents, there aint much difference between her and those already elected.. at least some of them. They are all populist uneducated blind morons like her.
Do we really need another politician that can't handle money?
I see the so call "Prof" had exuded some more hot air. Sure glad I won't waste my time reading it as I've blocked him. :lamo:lamo:lamo
You know what's really sad? It's the partisan right wing hacks here that would defend Guber on Mayberry RFD if he was a tea party candidate. He's one of us! Riiiiiight. :lamo:
then you agree that she should not be seriously considered as a viable candidate for the U.S. senate
I see the so call "Prof" had exuded some more hot air. Sure glad I won't waste my time reading it as I've blocked him. :lamo:lamo:lamo
You know what's really sad? It's the partisan right wing hacks here that would defend Guber on Mayberry RFD if he was a tea party candidate. He's one of us! Riiiiiight. :lamo:
i'll tell ya someone who's not fit to serve---charlie rangel, chair of WAYS AND MEANS, one of the 10 most powerful people on pennsylvania for decades
he just won his primary, i know you know, he's baaack
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?
On his federal tax returns, Rangel failed to declare rental income from a vacation property he owns in the Dominican Republic -- a mortifying embarrassment for the one-time chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax code. But certain facts about this transgression rarely get mentioned. For one thing, Rangel’s so-called “villa” can’t be very palatial, since it cost only $82,750 when he bought it in 1987. For another, Rangel has already filed amended tax returns and paid everything he owed, plus penalties and interest.
The remaining charges are yawn-inducing. Even assuming that the allegations, as presented to the House Ethics Committee, are wholly true, the case against Rangel has a Gertrude Stein problem: There’s no there there.
Rangel is accused of abusing his office -- using congressional staff, official stationery, and the unique access that his power and seniority gave him -- to raise funds for a Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The idea was to create an institution, situated in his Harlem district, that would house his papers and curate his legacy.
This can accurately be described as hubris. But if it’s a crime for powerful, long-serving members of Congress to hold themselves in abnormally high regard -- and to believe that future generations can learn from their sterling example -- then we’re going to have to build more prisons.
Rangel apparently was careless in filling out his required financial disclosure forms; he should have known better than to take that important exercise so lightly. And he’s accused of using a rent-controlled Harlem apartment as a campaign office -- which, I suppose, makes him the first New Yorker to look for loopholes in the city’s Byzantine rent-control laws. But where’s the old-fashioned venality? Where’s the out-and-out graft? Where’s even the hint of avarice?
What’s missing is any allegation that Rangel bent or broke a single House rule -- or even a New York city ordinance -- for his own gain. The Ethics Committee charges make much of a promotional flyer for the proposed Rangel Center that indicated Rangel would have an office at the facility. But, come on, does that really constitute a “personal benefit” under the law? Does anyone think that the legendary Charlie Rangel, after representing Harlem for four decades, doesn’t have a friend or two who would be happy to give him all the office space he wants once he eventually retires?
Rangel was trying to satisfy his ego, not line his pockets. The real crime would be if such a long, distinguished, important public career ended in disgrace.