Soul Strut

Drop image/file

<blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">Martin</strong> said:</div><div><blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">lamprey eel</strong> said:</div><div><blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">bluesnag</strong> said:</div><div>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.</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	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.<br />
	<br />
	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.<br />
	<br />
	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.<br />
	<br />
	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 <strong><em>official </em></strong>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.<br />
	<br />
	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!)<br />
	<br />
	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?<br />
	<br />
	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:<br />
	<br />
	http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39514<br />
	<br />
	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.</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	Hey sabadabababdabdax2<br />
	<br />
	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.</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	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.)<br />
	<br />
	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.)<br />
	<br />
	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.

Cancel

Community