No Christine O'Donnell thread yet?

AKallDay

this beeatch is the wursst.

the tea party is keeping me up at night.

this monchichi looking cretin should be debating snooki.

this is such an embarrassment to our country.


and Carl Paladino??

and Sharon Angle??

Hotsauce84

I'd tap.

It's a Harry Potter thing.

AKallDay

i'm not sure why this post loaded twice but Herm that is a really tall order considering she has declared publicly that she has never masturbated and is not married and does not believe in intercourse outside of marriage. and she is insane. this may mean she has never had a lot of things. like orgasms. you'd have your work cut out for you Dumbledore

Hotsauce84

You're kidding me, right? All that means is that's she a FREAKAZOID behind closed doors! I've known her type before.

Unknown

I hear she invented felching.

fishmongerfunk

DrWu

Until Slababdasad gets involved what in the world is there to say about a woman who is 20 pts behind in her race.

Brian

staxwax

crabmongerfunk said:

DIE

kicks79

What 1st amendment ?

bluesnag

crabmongerfunk said:

I love when everyone laughs at her when she asks where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state, and she smiles as if she thinks she really got him on that one. I mean, seriously, what a FUCKING MORON. I can't believe there are people who support this candidate. If you want to support someone whose platform is constitutional law, then find someone who FUCKING KNOWS WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION SAYS. For fucks sake.

brokenrecord

Sharron Angle is the one who is really scary. Cuz she could actually win! She's the one saying there's sharia law in Dearborn MI!! WTF!

And did you all hear her addressing the high school students?

Damn this country's full of morons! Idiocracy indeed!

Unknown

bluesnag said:

I love when everyone laughs at her when she asks where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state, and she smiles as if she thinks she really got him on that one. I mean, seriously, what a FUCKING MORON. I can't believe there are people who support this candidate. If you want to support someone whose platform is constitutional law, then find someone who FUCKING KNOWS WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION SAYS. For fucks sake.

Of course the people in that audience laugh at her, because they are a bunch of liberal college students, full of hubris and arrogance. Therefore, laughter and other boorish behaviour is to be expected from them.

Christine O'Donnell damn well knows what the Constitution says. Chris Coons, the attending college students, and the debate moderators, apparently, are the ones who do not.

There is no declaration of seperation of Church and State mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, period. Supposed seperation of Church and State is neither implied or intended as well.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America neither states nor implies any seperation of Church and State. The first amendment states, in part, that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." All that the first part of that sentence states is that no official Federal/national state religion will be established or recognized. That's it, and that is not seperation of Church and State, no matter what liberals want to think or say.

You want to elect a candidate to the US Senate that knows what the Constitution says? Then DO NOT vote for Chris Coons! Christine O'Donnell asked Coons in that debate to state what are the five guaranteed protections in the first amendment. Coons does not know what they are, could not answer the question (WHAT A FUCKING MORON!), and tried to play off his not being able to answer that question by pretending that he should only have to answer questions that the moderators ask him (WHAT A CHICKEN!)

You can't believe that there are people who support this (O'Donnell) candidate? If that is the case then you have little understanding of politics or the concept of voting blocs. The majority of people nationwide who support her support her (myself included) support her for how she will vote on legislation (as opposed to how Coons would vote on legislation.) Is that hard for you to understand?

Aside from Coons' complete lack of knowledge of what the first amendment guarantees and intends here is some more great commentary about Coons lies and corruption as articulated by one of my favourite columnists:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39514

Perhaps O'Donnell will not win the Senate race in Delaware (though I hope that she does.) Just don't go and try to pretend that a Coon's victory will spell a stunning defeat for conservatives and Republicans when Democrat incumbents nationwide deservedly get their heads handed to them in what is gearing up to become one of the greatest landslides in US Congressional electoral history.

DJ_Enki

brokenrecord said:

Sharron Angle is the one who is really scary. Cuz she could actually win! She's the one saying there's sharia law in Dearborn MI!! WTF!

And did you all hear her addressing the high school students?

Damn this country's full of morons! Idiocracy indeed!

She also invented a town in Texas and claimed that sharia law is in effect there.

And when asked about how she'd help put Nevadans back to work as a Senator, she said, "That's not my job."

And she hates government spending and entitlement programs...except for all that money she and her hubby have gotten from the government over the years.

And she quite literally runs away from reporters because otherwise she might have to answer questions.

But because Harry Reid is so hated, she might just win. Sad.

Jonny_Paycheck

I think what's really striking about O'Donnell, as opposed to some of the other mind-numbingly stupid New Republicans running for office, is how she really treats every media interaction like a talk show. She's been on these shows for years. Like in this clip, she is less concerned with making a case, or even winning the argument, than with scoring "Gotcha!" points.

Unknown

Martin said:

lamprey eel said:

bluesnag said:

I love when everyone laughs at her when she asks where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state, and she smiles as if she thinks she really got him on that one. I mean, seriously, what a FUCKING MORON. I can't believe there are people who support this candidate. If you want to support someone whose platform is constitutional law, then find someone who FUCKING KNOWS WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION SAYS. For fucks sake.

Of course the people in that audience laugh at her, because they are a bunch of liberal college students, full of hubris and arrogance. Therefore, laughter and other boorish behaviour is to be expected from them.

Christine O'Donnell damn well knows what the Constitution says. Chris Coons, the attending college students, and the debate moderators, apparently, are the ones who do not.

There is no declaration of seperation of Church and State mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, period. Supposed seperation of Church and State is neither implied or intended as well.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America neither states nor implies any seperation of Church and State. The first amendment states, in part, that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." All that the first part of that sentence states is that no official Federal/national state religion will be established or recognized. That's it, and that is not seperation of Church and State, no matter what liberals want to think or say.

You want to elect a candidate to the US Senate that knows what the Constitution says? Then DO NOT vote for Chris Coons! Christine O'Donnell asked Coons in that debate to state what are the five guaranteed protections in the first amendment. Coons does not know what they are, could not answer the question (WHAT A FUCKING MORON!), and tried to play off his not being able to answer that question by pretending that he should only have to answer questions that the moderators ask him (WHAT A CHICKEN!)

You can't believe that there are people who support this (O'Donnell) candidate? If that is the case then you have little understanding of politics or the concept of voting blocs. The majority of people nationwide who support her support her (myself included) support her for how she will vote on legislation (as opposed to how Coons would vote on legislation.) Is that hard for you to understand?

Aside from Coons' complete lack of knowledge of what the first amendment guarantees and intends here is some more great commentary about Coons lies and corruption as articulated by one of my favourite columnists:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39514

Perhaps O'Donnell will not win the Senate race in Delaware (though I hope that she does.) Just don't go and try to pretend that a Coon's victory will spell a stunning defeat for conservatives and Republicans when Democrat incumbents nationwide deservedly get their heads handed to them in what is gearing up to become one of the greatest landslides in US Congressional electoral history.

Hey sabadabababdabdax2

You seem to be glossing over the fact that when the constitution is directly quoted by the other candidate she poses the question "That's in the first ammendment???" more than once. She's obviously unfamiliar with both what is written as well as what's implied.

The only candidate in that debate who is unfamiliar with the first amendment is Coons, who absolutely had no capability (due to his ignorance of the full text and meaning of the amendment) of answering O'Donnell's direct challenge to him to name the five guaranteed protections in that amendment (if O'Donnell was ignorant regarding that amendment, she would not have been asking that quesion.)

For the record, the five protections guaranteed in the first amendment are: freedom of religion, speech, peaceable assembly, the press, and redress of grievances to the government (It would be nice if that moron and, unfortunately, Senate candidate Coons knew this but, chillingly, he clearly does not.)

O'Donnell posed the question/asked him to repeat what he said about the first amendment, re: the issue of Church and State, several times to make a point that Coon's believe there is something in the first amendment that does not in fact exist. O'Donnell's tactic/attempt on that one point may have come off as ham-handed at that one moment, but she, not Coons, is right about the first amendment and non-existence of "seperation of Church and State" in the Constitution.

white_tea

lamprey eel said:

Perhaps O'Donnell will not win the Senate race in Delaware (though I hope that she does.) Just don't go and try to pretend that a Coon's victory will spell a stunning defeat for conservatives and Republicans when Democrat incumbents nationwide deservedly get their heads handed to them in what is gearing up to become one of the greatest landslides in US Congressional electoral history.

I don't think anyone has said that. What O'Donnell losing the election would mean is that party-line Republicans got their asses handed to them by the extreme right wing of the party, and it didn't work out so well with the general electorate. The Republican party is having an identity crisis and one that will only get worse if they have a landslide victory, and its "leaders" actually have to get something done.

The thing that continues to boggle the mind is how someone like O'Donnell, who has no discernible job other than that of being of candidate, is one of the biggest forces in the supposedly boot-strappin' Tea Party that needs no help, thank you, from anybody. O'Donnell has no job and, really, never has, but wants one in the government. How exactly is that kosher under the Tea Party banner?

Grandfather

shes been unemployed, hasnt paid her student loans, has a condo near foreclosure, has used her campaign funds for her own personal use, and has dabbled in witchcraft....you cant be serious lamprey. Youze trollin'

Grandfather

the meaning you keep mentioning is obviously a conservative interpretation dude, be serious.
The question was about intelligent design which is Christian theology. Coons answer was correct.

DJ_Enki

white_tea said:

The thing that continues to boggle the mind is how someone like O'Donnell, who has no discernible job other than that of being of candidate, is one of the biggest forces in the supposedly boot-strappin' Tea Party that needs no help, thank you, from anybody. O'Donnell has no job and, really, never has, but wants one in the government. How exactly is that kosher under the Tea Party banner?

Because the vast majority of teabaggers suffer from the same hypocrisy:

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.

After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views.

"I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."

"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"

"Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."

I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"

Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!

"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending ??? only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending ??? with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about

4YearGraduate

even a corporate toady republican should not one someone in office who is TOO STUPID TO KNOW WHEN PEOPLE ARE LAUGHING AT HER.

bluesnag

Martin said:

lamprey eel said:

Martin said:

lamprey eel said:

bluesnag said:

I love when everyone laughs at her when she asks where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state, and she smiles as if she thinks she really got him on that one. I mean, seriously, what a FUCKING MORON. I can't believe there are people who support this candidate. If you want to support someone whose platform is constitutional law, then find someone who FUCKING KNOWS WHAT THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION SAYS. For fucks sake.

Of course the people in that audience laugh at her, because they are a bunch of liberal college students, full of hubris and arrogance. Therefore, laughter and other boorish behaviour is to be expected from them.

Christine O'Donnell damn well knows what the Constitution says. Chris Coons, the attending college students, and the debate moderators, apparently, are the ones who do not.

There is no declaration of seperation of Church and State mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, period. Supposed seperation of Church and State is neither implied or intended as well.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America neither states nor implies any seperation of Church and State. The first amendment states, in part, that the Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." All that the first part of that sentence states is that no official Federal/national state religion will be established or recognized. That's it, and that is not seperation of Church and State, no matter what liberals want to think or say.

You want to elect a candidate to the US Senate that knows what the Constitution says? Then DO NOT vote for Chris Coons! Christine O'Donnell asked Coons in that debate to state what are the five guaranteed protections in the first amendment. Coons does not know what they are, could not answer the question (WHAT A FUCKING MORON!), and tried to play off his not being able to answer that question by pretending that he should only have to answer questions that the moderators ask him (WHAT A CHICKEN!)

You can't believe that there are people who support this (O'Donnell) candidate? If that is the case then you have little understanding of politics or the concept of voting blocs. The majority of people nationwide who support her support her (myself included) support her for how she will vote on legislation (as opposed to how Coons would vote on legislation.) Is that hard for you to understand?

Aside from Coons' complete lack of knowledge of what the first amendment guarantees and intends here is some more great commentary about Coons lies and corruption as articulated by one of my favourite columnists:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39514

Perhaps O'Donnell will not win the Senate race in Delaware (though I hope that she does.) Just don't go and try to pretend that a Coon's victory will spell a stunning defeat for conservatives and Republicans when Democrat incumbents nationwide deservedly get their heads handed to them in what is gearing up to become one of the greatest landslides in US Congressional electoral history.

Hey sabadabababdabdax2

You seem to be glossing over the fact that when the constitution is directly quoted by the other candidate she poses the question "That's in the first ammendment???" more than once. She's obviously unfamiliar with both what is written as well as what's implied.

The only candidate in that debate who is unfamiliar with the first amendment is Coons, who absolutely had no capability (due to his ignorance of the full text and meaning of the amendment) of answering O'Donnell's direct challenge to him to name the five guaranteed protections in that amendment (if O'Donnell was ignorant regarding that amendment, she would not have been asking that quesion.)

For the record, the five protections guaranteed in the first amendment are: freedom of religion, speech, peaceable assembly, the press, and redress of grievances to the government (It would be nice if that moron and, unfortunately, Senate candidate Coons knew this but, chillingly, he clearly does not.)

O'Donnell posed the question/asked him to repeat what he said about the first amendment, re: the issue of Church and State, several times to make a point that Coon's believe there is something in the first amendment that does not in fact exist. O'Donnell's tactic/attempt on that one point may have come off as ham-handed at that one moment, but she, not Coons, is right about the first amendment and non-existence of "seperation of Church and State" in the Constitution.

C'mon dude. The seperation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution but the first amendment has been referenced through history as the writing that implies it. Most people know this, including you I'm sure. Christine O'Donnell clearly did not. Christine also wasn't familiar with what the 14th or 16th amendments were in that video if my memory serves. Why quote Ann Coulter to back up a candidate who has no business representing anyone? If O'Donnell is elected we all lose.

Correct. In another clip from the same debate, she said that she did not know what the 14th and 16th amendments were. She is running on a platform of being a constitutional expert, and flouts her "fellowship" she received based on her constitutional expertise. If you are running on that, you fucking damn well better know what the amendments to the fucking constitution are. If you don't, then you are a FUCKING MORON. And L. Eel, when I say I can't believe there are people who support this candidate, that is called "hyperbole". I am shaking my head at the people who do support her. "I can't believe it" means it baffles me because it is completely opposite to my own view. Surely you've heard that phrase before. You are an asshole, by the way.

4YearGraduate

Her "fellowship" was a 7 day course from a right wing think tank. She has no education and is debating a constitutional scholar. I just don't understand why he didn't go for the jugular and call her stupid.

rootlesscosmo

why is anyone engaging lamrey eel?

no one seriously denies that there exists a constitutionally-supported separation of church and state in the US.

that dude is wasting his time on this argument (and that anyone is bothering to respond) is laughable to me.

this isn't really even a serious teabag argument; this was a one-off gaffe by the moron o'donnell. lamprey's not even doing the teabag talking point thing right lol.

brokenrecord

lamprey eel said:

Christine O'Donnell damn well knows what the Constitution says.

LOL! Um, did you actually watch the clip? (And see what someone mentioned above when she was questioned about other aspects of the constitution.)

Grandfather said:

you cant be serious lamprey. Youze trollin'

Right? You're funny!

You can argue about whether or not separation of church and state is implied in the constitution til you're blue in the face. That's NOT what O'Donnell was referencing.

AKallDay said:

this monchichi looking cretin should be debating snooki.

AHH ha ha! I'd vote for Snooki.

fishmongerfunk

4YearGraduate said:

I just don't understand why he didn't go for the jugular and call her stupid.

doesn't he though, in so many words? he has to be wary not to come off as a condescending, smarmy, know-it-all jerk (something people of all political stripes seem to hate). otherwise, doesn't he have this one in the bag?

someone mentioned that this is merely a dress rehearsal for her inevitable job on fox news where she will have an opportunity to make tons more money and reach even more people with her convoluted message (whatever that is).

also, someone here said she speaks really poorly but i think jp was more on the mark when he said that she speaks in the vernacular of daytime talk-shows. the cadences, the posturing - she has it down really well.

staxwax

Has Larry Flynt put out the casting call for an O'Donnell pornalike yet?

"Witch Hunt"
XXX founding fathers type steez

DJ_Enki

rootlesscosmo said:

no one seriously denies that there exists a constitutionally-supported separation of church and state in the US.

Teabaggers do--they've been screaming it for a while. Here's my favorite teabagging idiot explicitly saying that O'Donnell was right, complete with hyperbolic "if you oppose O'Donnell, then you hate freedom and love tyranny!" stupidity. But he's dead serious.

Rockadelic

Anyone who votes for a candidate whose campaign ads start with "I am not a witch" needs to have their heads examined.

That being said, I can't help but think there are two gazillionaires like the Duke Brothers from Trading Places betting a dollar that ANYONE can beat a Democrat in 2010 and settled on Witch lady only after Crackhead Bob from the Howard Stern show turned them down.

Idiocracy

Unknown

Martin said:

C'mon dude. The seperation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution but the first amendment has been referenced through history as the writing that implies it. Most people know this, including you I'm sure.

The Constitution has been abused and chipped away at by the courts over many, many years, no doubt about it. Our nation has become far worse off for that abuse of the social contract and that is why we conservatives are demanding from our representatives fealty to Constitutional principles and forwarding candidates who declare (and prove via their actions) their commitment to such.

Martin said:

If O'Donnell is elected we all lose.

I'm sorry, but the issues facing this nation are not matters of how one feels about the topics of "whacking off" or "intelligent design." The issues that are facing people are the state of the economy and out of control government spending. I know how O'Donnell will vote on these issues.Therefore, if O'Donnell is elected "we all win."

Sidenote: Coons, who was previously against extending the Bush tax cuts for top income earners/taxpayers, is all of a sudden now for extending the Bush tax cuts to all income earners/taxpayers. O'Donnell is driving the debate and Coons (wanting to get elected) is following in kind.

Unknown

double post, sorry.