Why, she is none other than Stephanie Herseth, the SD candidate for Congress and that rarest of specimens, the Candidate Babe.
I checked out the vids on her web page (just in case that photo was one of those "exact angle and lighting" deals that flatter, and yep, she is very attractive in a very wholesome mom and apple pie sort of way.
She also is extremely telegenic, with a relaxed on camera vibe that must a huge asset in a Congressional race.
But, my original thread, before Tumptman intentionally derailed it, was about whether or not it's smart for Republicans to try and "frame" the issue of monies raised via Websites and Blogs as tainted simply because it may comes from liberals.
It's not smart because they too will soon want to raise money off the Internet for their efforts. Would they not then be considered hypocrits? Then of course, this wouldn't be the last time we've caught them red handed talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Here's the quote from the article that got my so pissed off:
"I think the real point is you judge a person by the friends they keep, and look where she's focusing her fund-raising efforts," Glodt said. "Anybody can look at these blogs and the content, and realize the values they are promoting are completely contradictory to the South Dakota values she purports to represent."
The friends they keep? Values? You've gotta be f*cking kidding me! You don't see Republicans shying away from raising money and keeping friends with ultra-right-wing groups do you? Republican's don't see anything wrong with having their photo taken at Bob Jones University, or with the crazy Moon guy, etc. Why should they? That's their constituency.
Why the fvck should Democrats? Oh, wait....liberals support gay rights. Now I got it. Those pesky faggots, we don't want them in South Dakota.
But, my original thread, before Tumptman intentionally derailed it, was about whether or not it's smart for Republicans to try and "frame" the issue of monies raised via Websites and Blogs as tainted simply because it may comes from liberals.
It's not smart because they too will soon want to raise money off the Internet for their efforts. Would they not then be considered hypocrits? Then of course, this wouldn't be the last time we've caught them red handed talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Here's the quote from the article that got my so pissed off:
"I think the real point is you judge a person by the friends they keep, and look where she's focusing her fund-raising efforts," Glodt said. "Anybody can look at these blogs and the content, and realize the values they are promoting are completely contradictory to the South Dakota values she purports to represent."
The friends they keep? Values? You've gotta be f*cking kidding me! You don't see Republicans shying away from raising money and keeping friends with ultra-right-wing groups do you? Republican's don't see anything wrong with having their photo taken at Bob Jones University, or with the crazy Moon guy, etc. Why should they? That's their constituency.
Why the fvck should Democrats? Oh, wait....liberals support gay rights. Now I got it. Those pesky faggots, we don't want them in South Dakota.
You are letting your own limited, stereotypical thinking get to you. The woman who's webpage you linked to that was "secret" also doesn't support homosexual marriage. She took quite a lot of heat for it in said blogs as well. In fact not only does she not support homosexual marriage, she actually support the Bush call for a constitutional amendment as well.
So take your (yet again) stereotypical, ignorant perception of a white faced, republican, male bubba, and attach to it the fresh-faced young woman with a big D in the party registration that you see above.
Then prepare to blast her with the same hateful diatribes you've already used on the caricatures you've created to attack in this thread.
You are letting your own limited, stereotypical thinking get to you. The woman who's webpage you linked to that was "secret" also doesn't support homosexual marriage. She took quite a lot of heat for it in said blogs as well. In fact not only does she not support homosexual marriage, she actually support the Bush call for a constitutional amendment as well.
So take your (yet again) stereotypical, ignorant perception of a white faced, republican, male bubba, and attach to it the fresh-faced young woman with a big D in the party registration that you see above.
Then prepare to blast her with the same hateful diatribes you've already used on the caricatures you've created to attack in this thread.
Oh, wait....liberals support gay rights. Now I got it. Those pesky faggots, we don't want them in South Dakota.
Except the liberal you were defending doesn't support gay rights. You made it sound like the basis of the Republican anger towards this woman would be because she supports gay rights where as the Republicans do not.
However she doesn't support gay rights, according to those, like yourself who frame the question of gays rights on one issue, homosexual marriage. She supports the president's view that, if necessary a Constitutional amendment should be passed to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Interestingly enough you quote the Republicans who complain that she is fund raising from blogs that support issues she does not, while not quoting the actual blogs where she was flamed a bit for not supporting homosexual marriage.
I, forgot, in North's world it is only REPUBLICAN criticism that is hateful and wrong. We ignore Democratic criticism.
Why is that so important, Scott? What about her stance on the issues? Doesn't that come first? Or are you a strictly partisan voter? No offense intended. I just want to know your political values better so I can understand you more.
Don't you find it interesting she hides her party affiliation on her site? I did read her issues.
So we can see she actually differs in opinion with Scott on one issue (Scott supports gay marriage) but what reason could Trumptman have to be against her? Could it be that big "D"?
First you would have to find the post where trumptman has something against her.
What trumptman has is an extreme desire to point out how hypocritical it is of people like Northgate to claim a false outrage over nonsense and then justify it buy using stupid stereotypes that represent the type of ignorance they themselves are promoting.
Why is that so important, Scott? What about her stance on the issues? Doesn't that come first? Or are you a strictly partisan voter? No offense intended. I just want to know your political values better so I can understand you more.
Because you can't blindly be a republican without that imaginary line being drawn. Seriously, how can you follow somehting without question unless it's pointed out to you specifically.
Because you can't blindly be a republican without that imaginary line being drawn. Seriously, how can you follow somehting without question unless it's pointed out to you specifically.
Comments
Originally posted by Alex London
OK g, who is she?
Why, she is none other than Stephanie Herseth, the SD candidate for Congress and that rarest of specimens, the Candidate Babe.
I checked out the vids on her web page (just in case that photo was one of those "exact angle and lighting" deals that flatter, and yep, she is very attractive in a very wholesome mom and apple pie sort of way.
She also is extremely telegenic, with a relaxed on camera vibe that must a huge asset in a Congressional race.
But, my original thread, before Tumptman intentionally derailed it, was about whether or not it's smart for Republicans to try and "frame" the issue of monies raised via Websites and Blogs as tainted simply because it may comes from liberals.
It's not smart because they too will soon want to raise money off the Internet for their efforts. Would they not then be considered hypocrits? Then of course, this wouldn't be the last time we've caught them red handed talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Here's the quote from the article that got my so pissed off:
"I think the real point is you judge a person by the friends they keep, and look where she's focusing her fund-raising efforts," Glodt said. "Anybody can look at these blogs and the content, and realize the values they are promoting are completely contradictory to the South Dakota values she purports to represent."
The friends they keep? Values? You've gotta be f*cking kidding me! You don't see Republicans shying away from raising money and keeping friends with ultra-right-wing groups do you? Republican's don't see anything wrong with having their photo taken at Bob Jones University, or with the crazy Moon guy, etc. Why should they? That's their constituency.
Why the fvck should Democrats? Oh, wait....liberals support gay rights. Now I got it. Those pesky faggots, we don't want them in South Dakota.
Perhaps we've blundered onto the answer to political threads that get out of hand-- a picture of a pretty girl, and the boys are struck mellow!
I found it almost impossible to find out if she's a democrat or republican on her site.
Originally posted by Scott
Don't go crazy guys. She has many good features but I'm not going to call her a babe.
I found it almost impossible to find out if she's a democrat or republican on her site.
Uh oh. Maybe I spoke too soon...
"She's a babe!" "What kind of retard would hit that?" "Like you've ever even been layed!" "Does your mother count?"
We're doomed.
Originally posted by Northgate
Yes, she is defnintely a babe.
But, my original thread, before Tumptman intentionally derailed it, was about whether or not it's smart for Republicans to try and "frame" the issue of monies raised via Websites and Blogs as tainted simply because it may comes from liberals.
It's not smart because they too will soon want to raise money off the Internet for their efforts. Would they not then be considered hypocrits? Then of course, this wouldn't be the last time we've caught them red handed talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Here's the quote from the article that got my so pissed off:
"I think the real point is you judge a person by the friends they keep, and look where she's focusing her fund-raising efforts," Glodt said. "Anybody can look at these blogs and the content, and realize the values they are promoting are completely contradictory to the South Dakota values she purports to represent."
The friends they keep? Values? You've gotta be f*cking kidding me! You don't see Republicans shying away from raising money and keeping friends with ultra-right-wing groups do you? Republican's don't see anything wrong with having their photo taken at Bob Jones University, or with the crazy Moon guy, etc. Why should they? That's their constituency.
Why the fvck should Democrats? Oh, wait....liberals support gay rights. Now I got it. Those pesky faggots, we don't want them in South Dakota.
You are letting your own limited, stereotypical thinking get to you. The woman who's webpage you linked to that was "secret" also doesn't support homosexual marriage. She took quite a lot of heat for it in said blogs as well. In fact not only does she not support homosexual marriage, she actually support the Bush call for a constitutional amendment as well.
Hey look, an ignorant white male not supporting homosexual rights
So take your (yet again) stereotypical, ignorant perception of a white faced, republican, male bubba, and attach to it the fresh-faced young woman with a big D in the party registration that you see above.
Then prepare to blast her with the same hateful diatribes you've already used on the caricatures you've created to attack in this thread.
Keep attacking those windmills...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are letting your own limited, stereotypical thinking get to you. The woman who's webpage you linked to that was "secret" also doesn't support homosexual marriage. She took quite a lot of heat for it in said blogs as well. In fact not only does she not support homosexual marriage, she actually support the Bush call for a constitutional amendment as well.
Hey look, an ignorant white male not supporting homosexual rights
So take your (yet again) stereotypical, ignorant perception of a white faced, republican, male bubba, and attach to it the fresh-faced young woman with a big D in the party registration that you see above.
Then prepare to blast her with the same hateful diatribes you've already used on the caricatures you've created to attack in this thread.
Keep attacking those windmills...
Nick
What the f*ck?
Originally posted by Northgate
What the f*ck?
Along with this...
Oh, wait....liberals support gay rights. Now I got it. Those pesky faggots, we don't want them in South Dakota.
Except the liberal you were defending doesn't support gay rights. You made it sound like the basis of the Republican anger towards this woman would be because she supports gay rights where as the Republicans do not.
However she doesn't support gay rights, according to those, like yourself who frame the question of gays rights on one issue, homosexual marriage. She supports the president's view that, if necessary a Constitutional amendment should be passed to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Interestingly enough you quote the Republicans who complain that she is fund raising from blogs that support issues she does not, while not quoting the actual blogs where she was flamed a bit for not supporting homosexual marriage.
I, forgot, in North's world it is only REPUBLICAN criticism that is hateful and wrong. We ignore Democratic criticism.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
Why is that so important, Scott? What about her stance on the issues? Doesn't that come first? Or are you a strictly partisan voter? No offense intended. I just want to know your political values better so I can understand you more.
Don't you find it interesting she hides her party affiliation on her site? I did read her issues.
Originally posted by Scott
Don't you find it interesting she hides her party affiliation on her site? I did read her issues.
Exactly as interesting as the fact that her Republican opponent, Larry Diedrich, does exactly the same on his site.
Originally posted by tonton
So we can see she actually differs in opinion with Scott on one issue (Scott supports gay marriage) but what reason could Trumptman have to be against her? Could it be that big "D"?
First you would have to find the post where trumptman has something against her.
What trumptman has is an extreme desire to point out how hypocritical it is of people like Northgate to claim a false outrage over nonsense and then justify it buy using stupid stereotypes that represent the type of ignorance they themselves are promoting.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
Why is that so important, Scott? What about her stance on the issues? Doesn't that come first? Or are you a strictly partisan voter? No offense intended. I just want to know your political values better so I can understand you more.
Because you can't blindly be a republican without that imaginary line being drawn. Seriously, how can you follow somehting without question unless it's pointed out to you specifically.
Back on topic now... Boomer says "YUM!"
Originally posted by FaydRautha
Because you can't blindly be a republican without that imaginary line being drawn. Seriously, how can you follow somehting without question unless it's pointed out to you specifically.
Back on topic now... Boomer says "YUM!"
[Edited by Fellowship]
Don't even go here Scott. Fellowship