tea party *candidates* are running on a platform that denies the separation of church and state? this seems like the ill-advised utterance of an unpolished candidate, not a serious position worth debating. I mean, I know a lot of these tea baggers *wish* there was no sep of church and state, but O'donnell's represents the first serious "challenge" to this notion that I've seen by a major candidate. (maybe I'n not paying enough attention.)
in a parallel universe the clip of O'donnell questioning the separation of church and state would be enough to sink her. how much more important/erroneous/potentially damaging is this view of hers than countless other internet hit pieces that have brought down entire campaigns?
I actually think that O'Donnell showed her stupidity more when she seemed to think that intelligent design stood on the same level as evolution as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY (I do disagree with Coons' use of the word "fact" here, as it has a questionable place in science in general). I'm not talking about beliefs here, someone can believe or not believe what they want. But to not teach evolution as an important part of biology is utterly ridiculous, as is presenting intelligent design with equal footing as a competing theory.
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.
none of that makes any sense to me.
aren't the courts tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution? also, isn't there an amendment formula in the constitution?
also, how can a person have "fealty" towards something they clearly don't have the first idea about except that it sounds good to say that he or she is 'for it'?
I find this blasphemy to be more saddening than maddening.
When I went to the National Archives in DC, I picked up a mini Constitution booklet. Until about 5 minutes ago, I felt really nerdy about choosing that as my souvenir. Upon watching the horrifying ignorance in the above clip, I was compelled to pull out the little booklet and rest it over my heart, as O'Donnell has somehow renewed a reverence for the document that I did not realize I had within me. I will sleep with it by my bedside, on the very top of my pile of to-read books and fashion magazines. I will rest well tonight with the knowledge that the framework for our democracy as documented by our forefathers is near me in print, to reference in times of doubt, and to revel in during times of triumph. I feel a surge of patriotism rise within me, one which I formerly only experienced when lighting illegal July 4th fireworks and I must thank Ms. O'Donnell for it.
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.
He didn't turn them down. He's running in Kentucky under the name Rand Paul.
I dont really believe these ODonnell type people actually stand for the shit they say. I always sense that they are just acting out a role and catering to the stupidity of certain demographics for $$$ (same as Plain). I reckon behind close doors they are much smarter and manipulative than they act in public. Its like they are entertainers/performers saying the shit that certain ppl want to hear to get popularity that they can turn into financial gain/power/control....
I dont really believe these ODonnell type people actually stand for the shit they say. I always sense that they are just acting out a role and catering to the stupidity of certain demographics for $$$ (same as Plain). I reckon behind close doors they are much smarter and manipulative than they act in public. Its like they are entertainers/performers saying the shit that certain ppl want to hear to get popularity that they can turn into financial gain/power/control....
I disagree about folks like O'Donnell, Paladino and Angle, all of whom appear to be sincere proponents of insane ideas, none of which are backed up by facts.
Palin is a clever, lower-level demagogue who seems to be a content delivery device for powerful people who basically remain in the shadows while they compose her Tweets, Facebook posts etc.
The real villains in this play are the Roves, Koch brothers et al, who provide or distribute huge sums of money meant to buy the elections, using the Tea Party as a smoke screen.
her "witch" admission was a lame joke, and she even got that part wrong...talmbout satanic altar four seconds later. Not saying she's any good, but I found her opponents' reaction to that to be silly also.
WARLOCK REVEALED!!!
nosrsly what if she were a witch? How would a witch fare?
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:
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.
Coons is a graduate of the nation's most selective law school--I suspect he has some familiarity with the Constitution.
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.)
That last part is a HUGE assumption based on nothing.
Let me also add that you are partially correct that the 1st Amendment is not an implied "separation of church and state". It's also an implied separation of mosque and state, temple and state, ashram and state, etc., etc. The 1st amendment clearly states that the Federal goverment (and the states by incoporation in the 14th Amendment) shall not establish a religion. How much more separate can you get? On one side you have government, and on the other, you have religion. And never the twain shall meet.
Why is this hard to understand?
There's is also plenty of Supreme Court decisions that blow your position out of the water.
Comments
tea party *candidates* are running on a platform that denies the separation of church and state? this seems like the ill-advised utterance of an unpolished candidate, not a serious position worth debating. I mean, I know a lot of these tea baggers *wish* there was no sep of church and state, but O'donnell's represents the first serious "challenge" to this notion that I've seen by a major candidate. (maybe I'n not paying enough attention.)
in a parallel universe the clip of O'donnell questioning the separation of church and state would be enough to sink her. how much more important/erroneous/potentially damaging is this view of hers than countless other internet hit pieces that have brought down entire campaigns?
none of that makes any sense to me.
aren't the courts tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution? also, isn't there an amendment formula in the constitution?
also, how can a person have "fealty" towards something they clearly don't have the first idea about except that it sounds good to say that he or she is 'for it'?
I find this blasphemy to be more saddening than maddening.
When I went to the National Archives in DC, I picked up a mini Constitution booklet. Until about 5 minutes ago, I felt really nerdy about choosing that as my souvenir. Upon watching the horrifying ignorance in the above clip, I was compelled to pull out the little booklet and rest it over my heart, as O'Donnell has somehow renewed a reverence for the document that I did not realize I had within me. I will sleep with it by my bedside, on the very top of my pile of to-read books and fashion magazines. I will rest well tonight with the knowledge that the framework for our democracy as documented by our forefathers is near me in print, to reference in times of doubt, and to revel in during times of triumph. I feel a surge of patriotism rise within me, one which I formerly only experienced when lighting illegal July 4th fireworks and I must thank Ms. O'Donnell for it.
He didn't turn them down. He's running in Kentucky under the name Rand Paul.
All these type of ppl remind me of the guy in that movie "The Last Supper"...http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113613/
I disagree about folks like O'Donnell, Paladino and Angle, all of whom appear to be sincere proponents of insane ideas, none of which are backed up by facts.
Palin is a clever, lower-level demagogue who seems to be a content delivery device for powerful people who basically remain in the shadows while they compose her Tweets, Facebook posts etc.
The real villains in this play are the Roves, Koch brothers et al, who provide or distribute huge sums of money meant to buy the elections, using the Tea Party as a smoke screen.
WARLOCK REVEALED!!!
nosrsly what if she were a witch? How would a witch fare?
Coons is a graduate of the nation's most selective law school--I suspect he has some familiarity with the Constitution.