O'Donnell is such a .... !!

#151
#151
MG1968 said:
she'd be replacing one of the biggest fracking idiots ever to hold elective office, Joe Biden. So why all the histrionics?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I would argue that a trained monkey would be better than either one of them.
 
#154
#154
IPorange said:
1821. It included large parts of what is now the western part of the US. Some hispanic people living there have been doing so continuously since that time, despite the territories Mexico gave up at the end of the US-Mexican war. So yes, Mexicans have in a sense been living in parts of this country longer than those parts have been part of the US.
Click to expand...

I have friends whose family history in the American southwest dates back to a 1600s Spanish Land Grant, they still own some of it and part of the family lives on that land.

Every American I have ever known, and I've known several, who has that sort of Spanish family history, identifies more as an American than as a Mexican.

Please pardon the length of the following but it something I copied a while back that may not still be on the net but it does dispel several current myths:




"The True History of the Southwest, 101"
Travis McGee

The amount of historical idiocy and fallacies surrounding the history of the Southwest is staggering, chief among them the "Aztlan" fairy tales. What's the truth? How did the Spanish Europeans conquer the Southwest? The "conquistadores" (that means "conquerors") did it with the lance, and the lash.

For example, in 1541 Coronado entered present-day New Mexico (which included present Arizona during the Spanish era) searching for the "lost cities of gold." One of his first actions upon meeting the natives was to burn 100s of them alive in their dwellings, for not handing over suspected horse thieves. That is how Spain conquered the natives of the present US Southwest--not with hugs and kisses! It was certainly no love-fest between long-lost brown-skinned soul- mates, as it is often portrayed today by the delusional Aztlaners today, who spin the "new bronze race of Mestizos" toro-mierda.

By 1821, Mexico City was strong enough to overthrow even more decrepit and ineffectual Spanish rule.

However, the distant provinces of the current US Southwest were far beyond the reach of the authority of independent but strife- torn Mexico.

These distant northern provinces received neither military protection nor needed levels of trade from the south. Under Spanish rule, trade with the USA was forbidden, but at least Spain provided trade and Army protection from hostile Indians. Under Mexican neglect, the Southwest received neither trade nor protection from Mexico City.

For example, Comanches and Apaches ran rampant in the 1830s in this new power vacuum created by Mexican neglect, burning scores of major ranches that had been around for hundreds of years and massacring their inhabitants. Mexico City could neither defend nor keep the allegiance of its nominal citizens in these regions.

Nor did it provide needed levels of trade to sustain the prior Spanish-era standard of living. Mexican influence atrophied, withered and died at the same time that American pathfinders were opening up new routes into the region.

Increasingly, a growing America was making inroads into the Southwest, via ships into California, and via gigantic wagon trains of trade goods over the Santa Fe Trail from St. Louis. The standard of living of the SPANISH in these states subsequently increased enormously, which is why they did not support Mexico City in the 1846-48 war.

In fact, the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER considered themselves "Mexicans" at all, ever. They went, in their own eyes, from SPANISH directly to AMERICAN.


So how long did Mexico City have even nominal control over the Southwest? For only 25 years, during which they had no effective control, and the area slipped backwards until the arrival of the Americans. The SPANISH inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER transferred their loyalty to Mexico City, because all the received from the chaotic Mexican government was misrule, neglect, and unchecked Indian raids.

Since then, how long has the area been under firm American control? For 150 continuous years, during which time the former Spanish inhabitants of the region, now American citizens, have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of the Mexicans stuck in Mexico.

To compare the infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc of the two regions is to understand the truth. The Mexican government has been mired in graft, corruption, nepotism and chaos from the very start. The ordinary Mexican peons have been trampled and abused, while only the super-rich elites have thrived. This is why millions of Mexicans want to escape from Mexico today, to enjoy the benefits of living in America they can never obtain in Mexico.

And now, we are supposed to let any Mexican from Chiapas, Michoacan or Yucatan march into the American Southwest, and make some "historical claim" of a right to live there? From where does this absurd idea spring?

At what point in history did Indians and Mestizos from Zacatecas or Durango stake a claim on the American Southwest? Neither they nor their ancestors ever lived for one single day in the American Southwest.

The Spanish living in the Southwest in 1846 stayed there, and became Americans by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There were no Spanish inhabitants of the Southwest who were marched to the border and driven into Mexico. It didn't happen. The SPANISH in the Southwest welcomed American citizenship, which brought stability, protection from Indian raids, and a vast increase in their standard of living with the increase in trade.

In sum, NO current inhabitants of Mexico have ANY claim on even one single inch of the Southwest!
Click to expand...
 
#159
#159
Vol Mania 21 said:
if you think it's the majority of the right then you're an idiot. its not obama's fault he's a complete moron
Click to expand...

No, I don't, but to paint the "right" as innocent of promulgating stupidity is misinformed and hypocritical.

I loathe all of them and think most, if not all, politicians are stupid as Hell, so I couldn't care less if they both just fell off the face of the Earth.
 
#160
#160
IPorange said:
I don't think she's inconsequential at all. She's scary as hell. I don't want to live in New Iran.
Click to expand...

We already live in a crappy, illogical, quasi-theocracy.

Can't gamble? Can't sell access to your beaver? Can't smoke a plant or snort some powder? Gays can't marry?

I thought we babbled about being "free."
 
#162
#162
MG1968 said:
don't know, but he sounds like a real jackoff
Click to expand...


:eek:lol: :eek:lol: :eek:lol: :eek:lol:

crats.jpg
 
#163
#163
sjt18 said:
Just curious though... why don't Obama's stupid statments bother the press and by extention you as much? Did you know that Al Gore could not correctly identify a bust of Thomas Jefferson while VP? Where was the blanket coverage of something that stupid?
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight since the press ignored Obama's woeful inadequacies to be president, we should ignore this woman's woeful inadequacies to be a Senator? The fact is the woman is a moron and not mentally fit to be Senator if she believes have the things she has spouted. I have just as much problem with her as I do with other loons on the right as well as the left.

The difference between you and me, is that you so want the Dems out of power so bad you are willing to put this headcase into office just because Sarah Palin called her a 'Momma Grizzly' certainly not because she is qualified.
 
#164
#164
until she won the primary, GOP establishment types were pretty much in agreement that the GOP wasn't going to win the Senate. After she won, you would think that they were all certain that it would be a GOP sweep but she ruined it. The only person I know of that was calling for a GOP takeover was Dick Morris.
 
#165
#165
lumberjack4 said:
Let me get this straight since the press ignored Obama's woeful inadequacies to be president, we should ignore this woman's woeful inadequacies to be a Senator? The fact is the woman is a moron and not mentally fit to be Senator if she believes have the things she has spouted. I have just as much problem with her as I do with other loons on the right as well as the left.

The difference between you and me, is that you so want the Dems out of power so bad you are willing to put this headcase into office just because Sarah Palin called her a 'Momma Grizzly' certainly not because she is qualified.
Click to expand...

So you like the Kenyan Keynesian marxist in the race???

FWIW she is every bit, if not more so qualified to be a senator than Barry was when he was elected to such a position.

What I don't get is why some are so overwroght about any mention of morals by any Christian but are equally ready to defend the rights of those who promote sharia law in this country.

I don't get that at all.

It has to involve some sort of preconceived prejudice.
 
#166
#166
gsvol said:
So you like the Kenyan Keynesian marxist in the race???
Jesus Christ do you read anything? No.

FWIW she is every bit, if not more so qualified to be a senator than Barry was when he was elected to such a position.
Zero Relevance. She is not qualified. Period.

What I don't get is why some are so overwroght about any mention of morals by any Christian but are equally ready to defend the rights of those who promote sharia law in this country.
You use morals and religion to make a point, while others of us use logic and reason.
Click to expand...

The fact that you people continue to use Obama's complete lack of qualifications to excuse someone else's complete lack of qualifications makes no sense to me. If you aren't qualified you aren't qualified. Makes no difference if there is a D, R, or TP next to your name.
 
#167
#167
lawgator1 said:
the right has been motivated to vote by the fearmongers.
Click to expand...
Right there is where you totally misunderstand the electorate IMO. The GOP isn't throwing wedge issues out there right now to create fear. They are riding a tidal wave of dissatisfaction. No fear mongering necessary to motivate people to get to the polls in this election.
 
Last edited:
#168
#168
lumberjack4 said:
The fact that you people continue to use Obama's complete lack of qualifications to excuse someone else's complete lack of qualifications makes no sense to me. If you aren't qualified you aren't qualified. Makes no difference if there is a D, R, or TP next to your name.
Click to expand...


I have noticed the same tack taken by Limbaugh and Hannity on this issue.

Namely, change the subject.
 
#169
#169
lawgator1 said:
It is a myth that the GOP is more popular than Dems. It isn't. Polls show Americans disfavor the GOP equally. There is a wave of antiincumbency right now and the right has been motivated to vote by the fearmongers.
Click to expand...
That is partially true but when asked about the issues or generically if they would consider themselves more "conservative" or more "liberal"... they choose conservative positions and the conservative label.

The GOP's problem isn't the ideals it says it stands for... it is that so many of us are suspicious of their sincerity about actually being small gov't conservatives.

You are entitled to your own opinion. But not your own facts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Wow!... This from YOU?
 
#170
#170
lumberjack4 said:
Let me get this straight since the press ignored Obama's woeful inadequacies to be president, we should ignore this woman's woeful inadequacies to be a Senator?
Click to expand...
No. You should deal with what is a "real" inadequacy rather than smear campaigns. I have already said I don't think it is a good idea for Palin to run.

My point is two fold. One, if it didn't matter for Obama then the press should not be trying to smear this woman. And two, some of his foot in mouth moments or disqualifying characteristics actually have something to do with functioning in the job.

Do you honestly think she will go to Washington and try to outlaw masturbation? Genetic testing on mice? Will she try to institute wicca as the state religion?

You KNOW that is ridiculous and that those stray comments are NOT reflective of her as a person or candidate. Don't let someone else make your mind up for you.
The fact is the woman is a moron and not mentally fit to be Senator if she believes have the things she has spouted.
Click to expand...
Name that tune. You keep making comments like this but fail to provide specifics in context and justified using them as a basis for a general judgment of her.

Three or four comments over the course of almost 30 years hardly makes someone a moron nor disqualifies them mentally from being a Senator.

I have just as much problem with her as I do with other loons on the right as well as the left.
Click to expand...
The big problem is that you have allowed someone else to make your mind up about O'Donnell. Go to her website, read her positions, and then make a decision on the facts. Don't go off a few embarrassing quotes the left has dug up and spun into a general indictment of her.

The difference between you and me, is that you so want the Dems out of power so bad you are willing to put this headcase into office just because Sarah Palin called her a 'Momma Grizzly' certainly not because she is qualified.
Click to expand...

No. The difference is that I don't think that a few embarrassing comments... two of which are 10+ years old should be a disqualifier for someone who is quite possibly qualified otherwise. I have read her positions. I have looked at her political career and record.

I find her greatly preferrable to a guy that called himself a bearded marxist. If we are going to hold her old comments against her, shouldn't this comment by her opponent be relevant? Because by the rule you are applying, any statement made by a person permanently defines them, right?
 
#172
#172
sjt18 said:
I find her greatly preferrable to a guy that called himself a bearded marxist.
Click to expand...
Now that I've heard the context of that quote, that "controversy" is just as dumb as the uproar over the witchcraft stuff.
 
#174
#174
Just admit it LG. You have some sexual attraction to these women. It's a twisted fetish of yours. You are obsessed with O'Donnell, Palin, and Bachmann. You only pretend to hate but clearly taking every opportunity to comment on them you do so. It's actually quite funny. But you know it's OK. I realize that your side is stuck with the likes of Helen Thomas, Barbara Mikulski, Madeline Albright, Rosa DeLauro, etc. Your frustration is just.
 
#175
#175
CSpindizzy said:
Just admit it LG. You have some sexual attraction to these women. It's a twisted fetish of yours. You are obsessed with O'Donnell, Palin, and Bachmann. You only pretend to hate but clearly taking every opportunity to comment on them you do so. It's actually quite funny. But you know it's OK. I realize that your side is stuck with the likes of Helen Thomas, Barbara Mikulski, Madeline Albright, Rosa DeLauro, etc. Your frustration is just.
Click to expand...


It's only because I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.

In the case of those three, its like dropping a 20 kiloton hyrdogen bomb into a lunch pail.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top