HOW dumb is Christine O'Donnell??

Socrtease said:
The whole spelling thing is bullshit. This is a conversation. It takes place as the written word, but it is still the equivilent of all of us sitting around a table talking. The spelling matters little. What does matter is getting your point across. Most of us here are able to do that regardless of our inability to spell words correctly on the fly. Use firefox and it will correct your spelling most of the time.
Click to expand...
Occasionally some of those Homophones will get ya though. ;)
 
Socrtease said:
The whole spelling thing is bullshit. This is a conversation. It takes place as the written word, but it is still the equivilent of all of us sitting around a table talking. The spelling matters little. What does matter is getting your point across. Most of us here are able to do that regardless of our inability to spell words correctly on the fly. Use firefox and it will correct your spelling most of the time.
Click to expand...

"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." Mark Twain
 
ZappasGuitar said:
The darling of the Tea Party...and now wonder!

She's at the top of the Tea Party intellectual ladder.

WILMINGTON, Del. — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

And here we thought Pinky and the Brain was just a cool cartoon. :D

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

pinky_brain.jpg
 
Damocles said:
It's good that you separate those two things, they are contraindications.
Click to expand...
While many a moron smokes cigars it does not mean that many a genius does not smoke them as well.

Mr. Clemens was a genius cigar smoker, like other people you know.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
He absolutely HATES the fact I made him look like a spineless simpering little worm for letting ID get away scott free for comments that were CLEARLY in violation of the rules.

That's why my sig line is gone...so he doesn't have to be reminded every day what a coward he is...and now I read that he's a new father.

I wonder how fast I'd get banned if I made comments outright stating that he molested his kids?

Anyone care to speculate?

Ever since then he's had a bug up his butt.
Click to expand...


We both violated rule 14 fuckwad...the difference is you broke it first you big ol' fat whiney-assed baby.

Damo removed my sig line too and yet I ain't crying.
 
O'Donnell was absolutely correct, Coons, the audience, the moderator, and the media, were absolutely wrong. There is no provision for separation of church and state in the Constitution, it simply does not exist. Coons basically admits this, when he is explaining that he believes we should abide by current interpretations of the Constitution as ruled by the courts. I wonder if he feels we were justified to abide by Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for all those years as well? It's how the courts had ruled on the Constitution, and he clearly said he thinks we should abide by the courts findings.... so??
 
Dixie said:
O'Donnell was absolutely correct, Coons, the audience, the moderator, and the media, were absolutely wrong. There is no provision for separation of church and state in the Constitution, it simply does not exist. Coons basically admits this, when he is explaining that he believes we should abide by current interpretations of the Constitution as ruled by the courts. I wonder if he feels we were justified to abide by Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson for all those years as well? It's how the courts had ruled on the Constitution, and he clearly said he thinks we should abide by the courts findings.... so??
Click to expand...

You're wrong on this one. At least a third of the Constitution deals w/ separation of church & state...
 
Onceler said:
You're wrong on this one. At least a third of the Constitution deals w/ separation of church & state...
Click to expand...

Nope... not found anywhere in there. In fact, when the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were ratified, most of the states had an "official" religious affiliation. The 1st prohibits the federal government from establishing a national religion, it does not segregate religion from government policy, and it is absurd to suggest it does. You are an idiot like Coons.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
The darling of the Tea Party...and now wonder!

She's at the top of the Tea Party intellectual ladder.

WILMINGTON, Del. — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.



"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...d-with-1st-amendment-ignorance?sc=tw&cc=share

Even though her views on ID and creationism are off the wall, and she is just not ready for the job as Senator,.... the part about the frist amendment is right on target.....

The coverage of this is just biased and unjust.....

Maybe you should actually read the 1st amendment.....

The Constitution DOES NOT mention "the separation of Church and State" ANYWHERE, including the 1st Amendment.

O'Donnell is absolutely RIGHT....

Listen closely to the debate....as Coons used the phrase "separation of Church and State" numerous times....

She SAID, not asked....and I quote, "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and State is found in the first Amendment"

Conns interjected, "the government shall make no establishment of religion"...

O'Donnell then says, "Thats in the first Amendment"......Its not a question at all.....

She is agreeing with him at this point.....because he now does not use the phrase, "separation of Church and State"....
 
Even though her views on ID and creationism are off the wall, and she is just not ready for the job as Senator,....
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you, she is immensely better qualified than the Bearded Marxist she is running against. Her views on ID are the same as most conservatives, she believes the theory of ID should be taught just as the theory of Abiogenesis and the theory of Evolution. No one is saying that our children should be taught that ID is a fact, or that it's even supportable by science, just that it's a theory which is popular among many people... what the hell is wrong with that? Education is supposed to TEACH people about ALL things, not just what you are comfortable teaching!
 
usaloyal2theend said:
You and ID are JUST THE SAME! You edit posts and by ALL that's holy it

WON'T BE TOLERATED. MAKE A NEW RULE FOR GAWD SAKES AND DO IT NOW !!!​
Click to expand...

I personally cannot tolerate typos in my posts, so I edit many of them immediately after posting them. If I notice that the original content has already been quoted or referenced, I will refrain, otherwise I have my minor OCD to contend with.
 
Dixie said:
I have to disagree with you, she is immensely better qualified than the Bearded Marxist she is running against. Her views on ID are the same as most conservatives, she believes the theory of ID should be taught just as the theory of Abiogenesis and the theory of Evolution. No one is saying that our children should be taught that ID is a fact, or that it's even supportable by science, just that it's a theory which is popular among many people... what the hell is wrong with that? Education is supposed to TEACH people about ALL things, not just what you are comfortable teaching!
Click to expand...

Thats fine. Teach it in a comparative religion class, or something similar. But teaching something in a science class just because its popular in a certain portion of the population is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top