Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hayworth takes his best shot at McCain in new TV ad
The Hill ^ | 7.23.10 | Sean Miller

Posted on 07/23/2010 11:02:16 AM PDT by pissant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last
To: 1rudeboy

I asked you and you didn’t answer. Now I know you don’t. SO there is some discernment you have regarding “rights” and “equality” and gender bias, etc. and for what purposes an amendment to the constitution should be used for. Next thing you know, you’ll be wanting women to be forbidden from driving.

Funny, this is just like me and my opinion of the 19th (and other) amendments.


51 posted on 07/23/2010 12:56:46 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

John McCain deserves to be re-elected Senator as much as Jeffrey Damler deserves to be named “Chef of the Century”.


52 posted on 07/23/2010 1:00:16 PM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pissant

No, it is not. I haven’t even read the text of the ERA, so I am not “discerning” or distinguishing anything. You just wish I was in order to support your argument.


53 posted on 07/23/2010 1:00:29 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

OK. So you are ignorant about the ERA, which came within a whisker to becoming part of our constitution. All the RINOs at the time (and all the dems of course) were singing its praises.

Thank GOD for the neanderthals like Schlafly, Goldwater, and RONALD REAGAN!!

Did you know that only 8 US senators voted against it (one was a dem)? That support for the ERA was in the GOP platform? (Reagan changed that).

And did you know it has been re-introduced in Congress?

The PC claptrappers are alive and well. Just as they were in the 1970s and the early part of the last century.


54 posted on 07/23/2010 1:11:34 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

ROFL!


55 posted on 07/23/2010 1:16:10 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: pissant
You still don't get it: you are using the ERA as a red herring. Just because I am in favor of a woman's right to vote, I am not in favor of an amendment I haven't read.

Much like being strongly in favor of the 2nd Amendment does not make me in favor of Prohibition. Your inability to recognize the above stems from your logical failure--"some Amendments are bad therefore other Amendments are bad." In your case, you feel that the 19th Amendment is bad because the 18th is bad. One has nothing to do with the other.

56 posted on 07/23/2010 1:19:33 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: pissant

a little late to make a difference.

what could hayworth do for a ten point shift into his favor?


57 posted on 07/23/2010 1:25:06 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

IOW

vote democrat because republicans will starve children by taking unemployment.

(just end it already, give everyone unemployment even if they have a job.)


58 posted on 07/23/2010 1:27:03 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I’ll try one more time - please read it slowly. Try to comprehend.

The only relationship between the 18A and 19A that I mentioned was that I used the 18A as ANOTHER example of a bad amendment. There is NO CAUSAL relationship between the two. No ‘If then therefore’ relationship; no AND or exclusive OR operators.

Just a simple example to blow away your flawed logic that since Amendments were allowed by the Founders, that future Amendments would therefore be beneficial.

Obviously, not all are. And the ERA, which nearly became one - which you are ignorant about - was just more PC claptrap, like the 19A.


59 posted on 07/23/2010 1:50:40 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Just a simple example to blow away your flawed logic that since Amendments were allowed by the Founders, that future Amendments would therefore be beneficial.

Except for the fact that the above was never my argument, and that it is a tortuous fabrication on your part, it is an example of something. I submit, idiocy.

60 posted on 07/23/2010 1:59:03 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Once more:

Me: no like 19A

You: You support Sharia too?

Me: Did the early Founders?

You: They allowed amendments

You used the “they allowed amendments” argument to do what? To refute the notion that I ID’d a time when women didn’t vote, generally, yet there was no sharia? It failed as an argument, completely. There was no sharia. Women didn’t have to walk behind the men, as you flippantly suggested I’d support, since I support repealing the 19A.

But I gave you the BOTD that you really believed “they allowed amendments” was somehow a refutation of my point, and therefore offered that amendments are not all beneficial. And you tortured logic to somehow push the notion that because the 18A was bad, that I used that to argue that it being bad made the 19A bad.

THE ONLY relationship is that they are both examples, IMO, of bad amendments


61 posted on 07/23/2010 2:14:41 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Women didn’t have to walk behind the men, as you flippantly suggested I’d support, since I support repealing the 19A.
I'm simply asking how far you would go in order to return women to their second-class status.

And you tortured logic to somehow push the notion that because the 18A was bad, that I used that to argue that it being bad made the 19A bad.
"How’d that prohibition thingee work out[?] Or the income tax[?]"

Time for your nap, old man . . . you can't even remember what you typed a few hours ago.

62 posted on 07/23/2010 2:25:12 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"How’d that prohibition thingee work out? Or the income tax?"

Yep, 2 excellent examples of Amendments gone awry. Notice I didn't mention the first 10, or the 13th, or the 24th? The sole purpose of that statement was to give OTHER EXAMPLES of worthless amendments. There is no "if then therefore" relationship.

63 posted on 07/23/2010 2:52:24 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
John McCain—>Sarah Palin—>[...]—>Kevin Bacon

Oh, that's easy..

John McCain had Sarah Palin as her running mate.
Sarah Palin's daughter is engaged to Levi Johnson (piss be upon him).
Levi Johnson dated Kathy Griffin
Kathy Griffin appeared with R. Lee Ermey in Run Jonny Run.
R. Lee Ermey appeared with Kevin Bacon in Murder in the First.

64 posted on 07/23/2010 3:14:47 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Pick one side of the argument, not both: either an example of an Amendment gone bad shows that the 19th is bad also, or it is not. If it is not, then why did you bring Amendments gone bad in the first place?


65 posted on 07/23/2010 3:15:11 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya

Ping 64


66 posted on 07/23/2010 3:16:12 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Are you trying to rationalize with the pissanty one? Good luck with that.


67 posted on 07/23/2010 3:17:10 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I think Glenn Beck has done an outstanding job of acquainting the American people with their own true history. Americans generally fend for themselves. At least that is how most of us over 50 were raised. Of course there are those who cannot physically do that, and do need help. And then there are others who “Play the system” to get something for nothing. Good parenting, as you know, is sooooo important And good parenting requires God and His Ten Commandments. And a good and Godly nation requires a vigilant spirit. Unfortunately, outside influences took over while most parents, and yes, even the church itself, closed their eyes. That is why we find ourselves where we do, on the brink of defeat. I think that this is part of the message Glenn Beck had for us today. We must reverse the leftward trend our precious nation has taken at the ballot box. Please ee my tag line!


68 posted on 07/23/2010 3:20:42 PM PDT by Paperdoll (REGISTER TO VOTE THEN DO IT RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; pissant; ExTexasRedhead; rabscuttle385; Liz; BillyBoy; Arizona Carolyn

I do hope that Hayworth wins this one. I’m so tired of the double-talking, double-dealing McCain.


69 posted on 07/23/2010 3:24:18 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama's more worried about Israelis building houses than he is about Islamists building atomic bombs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Pick one side of the argument, not both: either an example of an Amendment gone bad shows that the 19th is bad also, or it is not. If it is not, then why did you bring Amendments gone bad in the first place?

Only YOU are making the leap of logic that other amendments gone bad (AGB) demonstrates that therefore, the 19th is bad also. I said twice now there IS NO 'IF THEN THEREFORE' relationship.

The reason I brought up AGB in the first place was to note that just having the amendment process - "they allowed for amendments" - is worthless as a debate point. Amendments can and have been used for good or ill. If my calling out the 16th and 18th as examples of AGB confused you into inferring I meant 'because those are bad, therefore this means the 19A is also bad', that's your problem. And utterly illogical. They stand alone, each as an example of an AGB.

70 posted on 07/23/2010 3:26:51 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: pissant
If the Founders felt that they were infallible, then they would not have allowed for the amendment process. Short of you providing something from the Federalist Papers, or some other contemporaneous publication, that the Founders felt that giving women the right to vote is a grave threat to our Republic, then your opinion that giving women the right to vote is just that, your opinion. Don't hide behind the Founders.

If we applied your standard equally, then we'd still be debating that Representatives (and taxes) should be apportioned according to a formula that counts some persons as three-fifths of a human being.

71 posted on 07/23/2010 3:35:57 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I can tell your grasp of the 3/5ths rule is very poor.

No one said the founders were infallible. I could have just as easily mentioned the gay 90s (1890s, that is) or any other time prior to 1920.

I also, Mr. Strawman, never said it was a grave threat to the Republic.

And indeed, it is my opinion, just as it was the predominate opinion of large swaths of the population prior the women’s suffrage movement. They were all just a bunch of woman haters, I tell you.


72 posted on 07/23/2010 3:57:59 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I can tell your grasp of the 3/5ths rule is very poor.

Enlighten us, professor. Right after you explain why you would never vote for a "chick." Again, chicks are either a threat, or they are not. You are dissembling.

73 posted on 07/23/2010 4:01:49 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Strawman, I never said I wouldn’t vote for a chick again. I said specifically I wouldn’t vote for one for CIC unless her name was Thatcher - a colloquialism meaning she would have to be like the iron lady to get my vote. We have nothing of the sort available at this time.

As for the 3/5ths compromise, I’ll let you figger it out on your own.

As for chicks, only you use the word threatening. Are there other reasons for opposing things other than ‘threatening’. Do you oppose homos getting ‘married’ because it is threatening, or patently ridiculous? What about fur Trapping? Farting in an elevator? Kids texting during class?


74 posted on 07/23/2010 4:18:05 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: pissant; digger48; All
Because she was spouting the same nonsense during their campaign together.

"I support [McCain's] position on immigration."
FMR. AK. GOV. SARAH PALIN, 27 MAR. 2010

"We're going to have to secure the borders first,
and then enact comprehensive immigration,
but the border has to be secured first."

U.S. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, 21 MAY 2010


75 posted on 07/23/2010 4:19:15 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Don't worry, I get it. You'd vote for the right woman, you just don't think women should vote. How gallant.
76 posted on 07/23/2010 4:21:49 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Amnesty (sung to the tune of Dancing Queen)

In a trance, you can jive, yap like a bored House-wife
(ooo-oooo) See that girl, watch her preen, dig in for Amnes-teee

Friday night and the cameras roll
With Sean or Bill or Geral-do
Where they underhand you softballs, teaching you to swing
Might as well be on Larry King

Anybody with a heart would cry
To see Juan and Pedro and Gomez fry
In the Arizona desert, with the gila monsters
Then havin’ to hear Tancredo’s rants
And when you get the chance...

You are for Amnes-tee, as you tweet, a real Mexi-queen
Amnes-tee, feel the guilt from that Limousine (oh yeah)
As if by chance, you arrive, shakier than Barney Fife
(ooo-ooooo) See that girl, on the TV screen, dig in for Amnes-tee

Like old McCain, you can turn it on
“Guest workers”, “Register”, and “who’ll mow my lawn?”
Looking out for all our brothers, even with swine flu
You parrot Juan’s stance
And when you get the chance...

You are for Amnes-Tee, they cut our meat, and they change our sheets
Amnes-tee, so the elite can learn that Salsa beat (oh yeah)
Just like France, festering hives, creating a third world strife
(ooo-oooo) See that girl, just like Charlie Sheen, dig in for Amnes-tee


77 posted on 07/23/2010 4:22:36 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I’ve always considered Thomas Jefferson to somewhat gallant. You?


78 posted on 07/23/2010 4:25:42 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Apparently, he caved when the time came to write the amendment process into the Constitution. /s


79 posted on 07/23/2010 4:30:17 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

He was in France.


80 posted on 07/23/2010 4:33:01 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Traitor. /s


81 posted on 07/23/2010 4:34:08 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: pissant

When are YOU going to run!

You seem to have the fire in your heart...

Get off your fat ass and go for it!!!


82 posted on 07/23/2010 4:44:34 PM PDT by Randy Larsen ( BTW, If I offend you! Please let me know, I may want to offend you again!(FR #1690))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

All your Palin Bashing berongs to us.

There is nothing you can do about it.

All resistance to Palin is futile.


83 posted on 07/23/2010 4:52:01 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (A loud band of PaulBots, Isolationists, Protectionists, 911Inside Jobnuts, 3rdParty Loud Irrelevants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; pissant

AJM: Yeah, well it seems California Republicans don’t bother to do any research beyond the commercials. Meg Whitman, at the same time she’s promising in her ads to crack down on the borders was crying about Arizona doing just that.

DH: I think in the end she endorsed the Arizona law.

AJM: I don’t think she did. I think you are thinking of the other gal. I know Fiorina did, after initially saying it had a “racial tone” to it.

DH: Well, she went back and forth on it, so maybe I don’t know what Whitman’s final position was.

AJM: You couldn’t tell from her ads. But Poizner was all over it. He thought that might be his opportunity to get some credibility.

So, not only is Duncan Hunter absolutely clueless regarding a major policy stance in a critical governor's race, Pissant softballed him on the follow up saying no one could tell what Whitman's stance was well before the primary.

Thank God for the canyon and lost signals, huh.

84 posted on 07/23/2010 5:37:47 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Thank God for the canyon and lost signals, huh.

LOL

85 posted on 07/23/2010 5:46:40 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I hope that we see this ad soon. ,have not seen it yet. JD is stepping up with ads as McCain is starting to spend less. I hope that this works for JD. He really had no choice, money wise.
86 posted on 07/23/2010 6:13:39 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Randy Larsen

I’ll be sure to mail you if I need the retard vote


87 posted on 07/23/2010 7:39:54 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: rintense; rabscuttle

Funny what a multi-million dollar radio ad can do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVheLuooLUw


88 posted on 07/23/2010 8:03:42 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Glenn Beck’s take on history is shaky, to say the least.

Yes, if it wasn't for all those pesky original documents David Barton comes up with, unless of course he is a forger.

89 posted on 07/23/2010 8:32:47 PM PDT by itsahoot (Republican leadership got us here, only God can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I said nothing about support for Hayworth or anyone else’s opinion.

I simply gave you some advice. If you are trying to garner support for Hayworth, which you seem to be doing, then why antagonize people.

For example, you’ve antagonized me by the irritating and irrelevant comment about my life.

Examine yours.


90 posted on 07/23/2010 9:15:00 PM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Make sure you can make a coherent email because we retards have a hard time reading emails from the ruling class .


91 posted on 07/23/2010 10:14:21 PM PDT by Randy Larsen ( BTW, If I offend you! Please let me know, I may want to offend you again!(FR #1690))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Randy Larsen; pissant

pissant is just that, the ruling class came and went.


92 posted on 07/23/2010 10:17:24 PM PDT by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Barton is the same stooge who claimed to Beck and for the world to hear that wine and beer back in the days of the founders had next to no alcohol. He doesn’t know sh*t from shinola.


93 posted on 07/23/2010 10:28:18 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: altura

Your high opinion - apparently - of Palin, has no bearing whatsoever on anything I’ll ever think or any politician I ever will or will not support. Works better that way to figger things out for oneself.


94 posted on 07/23/2010 10:34:25 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Randy Larsen

LOL. Ruling class? You have your head stuck up the GOP rear end so far, apparently, you can’t even see your queen is an amnesty queen.


95 posted on 07/23/2010 10:42:08 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Oh, that's easy..

i thought of a shorter route: John McCain to Sarah Palin (running mates) Sarah Palin to Alec Baldwin (SNL) Alec Baldwin to Kevin Bacon (She's Having a Baby)... 3 degrees to Kevin Bacaon haha! this is fun...

96 posted on 07/23/2010 11:07:04 PM PDT by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: pissant
He doesn’t know sh*t from shinola.

Yes you are absolutely right. He is a lunatic, and you are the genius. I think the government uses velvet chains on their useful idiots, will you be getting those?

97 posted on 07/24/2010 9:33:48 AM PDT by itsahoot (Republican leadership got us here, only God can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I have not really been following "Duncan Who?" since he conveniently decide to retire about the same time that Brent Wilkes and the others were convicted in that case and the House moved to quash the subpoenas to protect the 12 House members that were under investigation. Given the timing, I figured he probably got immunity for talking to the FBI behind closed doors. But since you asked, I did a search and there are no updates on the FBI investigation on-line but that certainly doesn't mean he was cleared of involvement with the Cunningham/Wilkes case. However, the apple doesn't seem to fall far from the tree.

Duncan Hunter's earmarks benefit his son

98 posted on 07/26/2010 1:36:25 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

LOL. How pathetic. A subpeona from a f***** idiot like Garagos equals an FBI investigation? You can’t possibly be this stupid. Actually, I take that back.


99 posted on 07/26/2010 1:42:05 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I proved the FBI investigation a long time ago...in fact, you were specifically asking for an update on that specific FBI investigation, so don't act like you are obtuse...

According to published reports and congressional and law-enforcement sources who did not want to be identified discussing a sensitive investigation, the Feds are also reviewing Wilkes's ties to other powerful House leaders. Former GOP majority leader Tom DeLay, Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter and Appropriations Committee chairman Jerry Lewis all reportedly had dealings with Wilkes.

Newsweek/MSNBC

And good grief...when are you ever going to grow up and quit calling people names just because they don't agree with you?

100 posted on 07/27/2010 7:16:38 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson