signalmankenneth
Verified User
Christine O'Donnell New Campaign Song
HOW dumb is Christine O'Donnell??
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
i think you mean scotus decisions and interpretations
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Democrats lean more toward scrotum inspections.....
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Agreed. The man is clearly in over his head. And unfortunately, I do not believe he'll move to the center when the Republicans take the House of Representatives (as Clinton did). Obama is an ideologue; Clinton was not.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
On a philosophical level, O'Donnell's interpretation of the 1st Amendment is closer to the original intent than that of Coons. However, when Coons recited the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, O'Donnell asked, "That's in the First Amendment?" The fact that she wasn't familiar with the establishment clause is embarrassing, especially considering she claims to be a Constitutional conservative and is (or was?) supported by the Tea Party Express. I ask "was?" because when I looked at TPE's web site a few minutes ago, I noticed O'Donnell has disappeared from their endorsement list.
And while memorizing the Constitution isn't mentioned in the Constitution as a requirement for taking office, wouldn't you agree that it is fundamentally a good idea?
The 1st Amendment does guarantee a separation of church in state in that the Federal government may not recognize or give special treatment to any specific denomination. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Seems pretty clear to me. This restriction also applies to State and local governments via the 14th Amendment (which O'Donnell also knows nothing about).
I've been a member of this site for 12 hours, and you're already making wild assumptions about what I believe. I am a conservative. As for the personal attack, it warrants no response.
Yeah, that's called separation of church and state. As Jefferson explained in his response to the Danbury Baptists,
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
I think many conservatives need to get over the phrase "separation of church and state." Clearly, the 1st Amendment does guarantee such a separation. Just to clarify, I don't believe this means the Ten Commandments can't be placed in a courthouse or a cross can't be erected at a public war memorial, as the ACLU claims. (That said, I personally believe it's better if all branches of government stay away from religious issues).
This isn't a matter of philosophy, because the fact of the matter is, I undoubtedly agree with O'Donnell more than Coons. It's about delivery. The bottom line is O'Donnell is a very silly woman who lacks the intellect, experience, class, and integrity needed to represent Delaware (or any other state) in the US Senate.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
She said "That's in the First Amendment." It was not a question, it was a statement concurring what Coons had said, which was not what he claimed was in the First Amendment originally. You falsely interpreted it as a question. I don't know who is on what web site, I don't know who is endorsing whom, but I do know that O'Donnell knew "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution.
I would say O'Donnell apparently had a better recollection of what was in the Constitution than Coons, since he tried to say "separation of Church and State" was in there, when it's not.
The First Amendment does not mention a separation of Church and State. It says government can't respect an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The 14th applies this to the states as well. O'Donnell did indeed know and understand that, Coons and you, apparently do not. You are doing just as Coons, and trying to "interpret" something into the Constitution that isn't there. When called on it, you claim those calling you on it, are stupid. You are the one who is stupid, the Constitution doesn't say what you and Coons want to claim it says.
I don't give a shit if you've been a member for 12 years! You're a fucktarded dumbass if you think the Constitution mentions as separation of church and state. It simply doesn't.
Jefferson's Letter to Dansbury Baptists is not part of the Constitution, if it were, you and Coons would be correct, and O'Donnell and myself would be wrong. Jefferson's explanation of the "wall" as articulated to Baptists at Dansbury, was to reassure them the government would not establish a national religion, or interfere with their religious exercise. He makes no mention of religious viewpoints being considered when establishing laws. In fact, an even greater Founding Father, George Washington, said a nation without God could not stand. Now, how can a nation have God if it is separated from God by some mythical wall?
I think you need to understand the fact that "separation of church and state" is found nowhere in the Constitution, and thus, is not, and can not be guaranteed by the Constitution. This is purely a SCOTUS determination, a ruling by a court, not something that is stated in the Constitution. It's like trying to claim the Constitution says black people are property! If some idiot were trying to tell you that "clearly, the Constitution guarantees blacks are property!" What would you say about that?
Coons is an avowed Marxist! I don't give a damn if O'Donnell holds seances and chants to goats heads, she is a better congressional representative than a Marxist Communist! You're no conservative, you're a "populist!" You buy into whatever the "in" crowd is pushing. If the talking heads and popular people tell you O'Donnell is "silly" you accept that, because you want to be popular too... part of "the crowd" and looked up to with respect as such. You're just like McCain if you aren't a liberal. You'll sell out every conservative principle you have to be liked by the left and seen as a "moderate" a man of reason... you're a fucking joke, and the second biggest part of the problem, aside from Marxist Communist liberal pinheads.
Really! Coons has come out and stated that he is a Marxist!!!!! That is one powerful revelation! O'Donnell probably doesn't even know what a Marxist is and has probably never read the book! He used the bearded Marxist remark as hyperbole, but she isn't smart enough to know what that is, either!
Better than a dumbass, know nothing! I am not a witch!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, he said it, and you know he said it, now you (and he) want to try and claim it was 'sarcasm' but his political viewpoint is sheer unadulterated Marxism, just like yours.
I don't ask you to believe me, read his senior paper, called the Bearded Marxist for yourself, unless you are afraid to learn the truth and just want to keep repeating Christine's lie! Make yourself look foolish, go ahead, you are use to it by now! Repeating things you don't even understand or educate yourself about! It is the kind of neoconservative that you are, Dixie, the worst of the neocons! Just hoping if you repeat something often enough it becomes your truth! but it just makes you look stupid, like Christine and Sarah! Now, Coons has some problems, but it isn't being a Marxist! That is just ridiculous!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And let's get something clear here... O'Donnell is running for office in Delaware, the home state of Joe Biden. I will be astonished if she can win there, it's quite astonishing she is even on the ballot there. Delaware has a total population of less than a million people. It isn't some 'bellwether' for the rest of the nation. It's a relatively small insignificant suburb of Washington, D.C. You pinheads are piling on her because you realize she is probably going to be one of the few 'victories' you can claim on November 3rd, but if the pinheads of Delaware want a bearded Marxist representing them, that's up to them, they did give us Joe Biden, so nothing surprises me about Delaware people, except that they nominated Christine O'Donnell!
No, I can claim a victory in Alaska with Murkowski! Crossing fingers, but it looks better all the time! No Joe Miller for me, please, another Tea bagging idiot!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LMAO... Pinheads are far too stupid to spell Murkowski, and that is important for any write-in candidate. I think you're going to get Miller, like it or not. Enjoy your TEA!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...d_demonstrates_write-in_procedure_107237.html
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Of course, the pinheads in DE could have simply nominated Castle...
I did it, they can, too and I hope we surprise you with Lisa! Joe got scolded by the GOP! He was a bad boy!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, in case you didn't notice, the GOP doesn't control the TEA Party, which is why Murkowski is having to teach pinheads how to spell her name. This election is really different, the TEA Party candidates are opposed by the Socialist Liberals as well as the Establishment Republican Elites. So far, they are thoroughly kicking everyone's ass, and on November 2nd, they will show you exactly what a "silent majority" looks like. I wouldn't be getting my hopes up if I were you...but then, I'm not you, thank God!
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Incorrect, Dixie. It is evident by O'Donnell's tone (as well as the response she receives from the crowd) that she was asking a question. Since it is apparent you haven't watched for yourself, here it is. I suggest starting at around 7:00.
www youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Nobody has implied that the term "separation of church and state" appears word for word in the First Amendment. Nobody believes that, Coons included. The principle of separation, however, is found in the establishment clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As James Madison noted,
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (James Madison to Robert Walsh, 1819)
Madson, the father of the Constitution, also objected to national days of prayer and Congressional chaplains:
"'Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820)
"There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of INJUNCTION, or have lost sight of the equality of ALL religious sects in the eye of the Constitution." (James Madison to Edward Livingston, 1822)
The bottom line is that most of our founding fathers sought to establish a country with not only an open market economy, but also an open market of philosophical, political, and religious thought. Madison, Jefferson, and many other founding fathers believed that people should have the freedom to decide upon their own religious beliefs without any government guidance whatsoever. Unfortunately, there were also a few founding fathers such as Alexander Hamilton, who believed as you do -- that the government has the right to impose a particular religious framework onto the people.
As I stated, I concur that O'Donnell's interpretation on a philosophical level may be closer to the original intent than that of Coons. Coons would likely say that it's unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to be present in a courthouse. I would disagree, so long as the government doesn't pay for the monument.
On the other hand, one could argue that since the courthouse is funded through legislation (whether national, state, or local) that the Ten Commandment does constitute a violation of the First Amendment. This is a discussion for another time, however.
How could O'Donnell possibly understand this, considering she was oblivious to the establishment clause as well as the entire 14th Amendment?
Coons and I would probably disagree regarding interpretation of the First Amendment. Unlike Coons, I do not believe the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional cases. As Jefferson noted,
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. [...] The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." (Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820)
I am doing no such thing.
Where did I say that I am opposed to religious viewpoints being considered when establishing laws? Again, you are making wild assumptions about what I believe, instead resorting to personal attacks. As a reasonable person, though, I'd be willing to discuss that issue in-depth... once you're ready to have a rational discussion like grown-ups.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I know exactly what you mean. I met my congressman Pat Tiberi at a local event and to say he wasn't the brightest person in the room was to be very generous. He was asked some very specific policy questions and was utterly incapable of speaking beyond memorized talking points. I came away from the event thinking....WTF....I can run circles around this guy. He's not a bad person but I doubt he's ever had an original thought in his life.
I think that a certain amount of politics is salesman ship. Having the drive and energy to make yourself known well enough to get elected.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
why??......you know the Marxist is going to intentionally take you in the wrong direction......an idiot only might do so accidentally.....