HOW dumb is Christine O'Donnell??

Dixie said:
Can you name one prominent politician or public figure who has advocated this? Don, you are telling an outright lie. No one has suggested any such thing, and I would suspect if such a thing were ever suggested, it would be widely rebuked by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and every major religious leader in America. This is your lame attempt to try and smear people who disagree with you on morality issues, and you know it.
Click to expand...

Pat Robertson?

John Hagee?

That's two and it only took me 5 minutes.
 
Dixie said:
Cite?
Click to expand...

As it happens, I got my info from an "independent source" similar to the source you cited in another thread.

According to the ZICS, both have made comments stating their support for Christianity as the official religion in the past.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
As it happens, I got my info from an "independent source" similar to the source you cited in another thread.

According to the ZICS, both have made comments stating their support for Christianity as the official religion in the past.
Click to expand...

LOL... Okay, but just to be clear, this is how the argument went:

Pinhead: the desire for a person's religion to be the states only religion is still strong today.
Dixie: Who has said this?
Pinhead: Lots of people!
Dixie: Who in particular?
Pinhead: Pat Robertson and John Hagee!
Dixie: Proof?
Pinhead: *crickets chirping*

Here's the fact of the matter, you can't post a link to anything to show this to be the case, because no prominent person in America has ever suggested we adopt a single religion as the only religion of the state. The idea is absurd on it's face, and it is ridiculous to take the original allegation serious. So, where did such an allegation come from? Out of the clear blue sky? Of course not, that would also be silly to conclude. It comes from the secular left, who seek to strip any consideration or voice from religious believers, from our system of governance.

Now, this would be fine with many, but the nagging little problem is our nation's founding principles. That all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator (note capitalization) with inalienable rights. One either believes this founding principle or they don't, there isn't really a gray area. Marxist-Socialists happen to not believe it, because belief in a Creator who endows rights, is contrary to State controlled rights. With Marxist-Socialism, the State must control rights, otherwise, the experiment fails. If the people have faith in something other than the State, it is impossible to develop faith in the State among the masses, and for this reason, most Marxist-Socialist regimes are highly Atheistic. In order to 'transform' America into a Marxist-Socialist state, you must first eliminate the ties to religious beliefs, and the best way to accomplish that, since about 90% of Americans have those, is to marginalize their voice in politics. Through control of the political system, you can effectively squelch the religious, and manipulate the principles to fit your own needs, which are that of Marxist-Socialism.
 
Threedee said:
Actually, until the 14th, technically there was no mandatory separation at the state level, although the last state churches were disestablished in the 1830s, well before the passage of the 14th.
Click to expand...

Considering O'Donnell didn't know what the 14th Amendment is, I'd be willing to bet she doesn't understand the first thing about incorporation doctrine. What an embarrassment to the Republican Party. Mike Castle, while far from ideal (voted for cap & tax, for example), was a fine candidate who would have represented Delaware with dignity and class. As it stands, if I lived in Delaware I'd either vote for Coons or not vote at all.
 
Voltaire said:
Considering O'Donnell didn't know what the 14th Amendment is, I'd be willing to bet she doesn't understand the first thing about incorporation doctrine. What an embarrassment to the Republican Party. Mike Castle, while far from ideal (voted for cap & tax, for example), was a fine candidate who would have represented Delaware with dignity and class. As it stands, if I lived in Delaware I'd either vote for Coons or not vote at all.
Click to expand...
Wow.....didn't know what the 14th Amendment was about.....
.
I'll wager you could tell me what the 20th is about without looking it up....
bullshit....I know you couldn't....and Obama or Biden couldn't either.
.
.
How about the FACTS presented in my sig (and they are accurate quotes)....could that be an embarrassment to the Dimocrat Party....???
 
by the way....the 14th covers a lot issues....

Privileges and Immunities
Due Process
Equal Protection
Apportionment of Representatives
Civil War Disqualification
and Debt
 
bravo said:
Wow.....didn't know what the 14th Amendment was about.....
.
I'll wager you could tell me what the 20th is about without looking it up....
bullshit....I know you couldn't....and Obama or Biden couldn't either.
Click to expand...

I'd understand if O'Donnell didn't know what the 20th Amendment is about. Few probably do. By comparison, the 14th Amendment is general knowledge. I remember learning about it in high school. And considering how it pertains to individual rights and the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, I would think that someone claiming to be a Constitutional conservative would know it and know it well.

She also didn't know the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Total embarrassment. This is the woman who claimed that her participation in a Constitutional class at the Claremont Institute qualifies her to be a US Senator. She later said, "Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution."

Well, fortunately, Christine O'Donnell will not be elected.

How about the FACTS presented in my sig (and they are accurate quotes)....could that be an embarrassment to the Dimocrat Party....???
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across. I oppose Obama and I can count the number of Democrats I've voted for on one hand.
 
Also, let's be honest, Obama didn't actually believe there are 57 States. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Barack Obama. A slip of the tongue that occurred on the campaign trial over two years ago is not one of them.
 
bravo said:
Wow.....didn't know what the 14th Amendment was about.....
.
I'll wager you could tell me what the 20th is about without looking it up....
bullshit....I know you couldn't....and Obama or Biden couldn't either.
.
.
How about the FACTS presented in my sig (and they are accurate quotes)....could that be an embarrassment to the Dimocrat Party....???
Click to expand...

Where are all the extra "uhs" you put in your quote? I presume that's what you meant.

 
Voltaire said:
Also, let's be honest, Obama didn't actually believe there are 57 States. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Barack Obama. A slip of the tongue that occurred on the campaign trial over two years ago is not one of them.
Click to expand...

okay, then let's be honest and admit Obama has been fucking up the country ever since he took office......
 
She also didn't know the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Total embarrassment.
Click to expand...

She actually did know it better than Coons. She knew it didn't mention separation of church and state, and it doesn't, even though Coons tried to claim it did. You retards are still trying to claim it does, but it doesn't, and it never has. It says government can't establish a national religion, and forbids government from prohibiting religious exercise. If you listen to Coons answer, he essentially admits the constitution doesn't say it, and starts yammering about this being the finding of the courts, through SCOTUS rulings. Now, since black people are no longer considered property, we know that what the court decides the constitution means, can change. The actual words of the constitution do not change, and O'Donnell was correct.
 
Voltaire said:
Also, let's be honest, Obama didn't actually believe there are 57 States. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Barack Obama. A slip of the tongue that occurred on the campaign trial over two years ago is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Why is it you want us to "be honest" about what Obama said, while you get to distort and "be dishonest" about whatever your favorite rightie says? Why do the same rules not apply both ways?
 
Voltaire said:
Also, let's be honest, Obama didn't actually believe there are 57 States. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Barack Obama. A slip of the tongue that occurred on the campaign trial over two years ago is not one of them.
Click to expand...

As long as you actually want some honestly......

1....nowhere is there anything in the US Constitution claiming "separation of Church and State"....or "a wall of separation between Church and State"
Christine O'Donnell was right....

2....Few people could tell us what issues a particular Amendment dealt with by its number, except for a certain few.....like those dealing with guns, abortion, speech, ....among others....

and of course there are reasons to oppose O'Donnell also.....what hi jinks she did as a high school kid isn't one of them.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top