Christine O'Donnell will defend the U.S. Constitution, whatever that is.

[DMX7]

Christine gets Absolutely PWNED. Crowd laughs out loud at her.

miwSljJAzqg

[boutons_deux]

Typical tea bagger bitch, like mama grizzly, Angle, etc, completely uncultured and ignorant, just the way tea baggers like their women. They'd all be manipulated like dubya by the string pullers if they ever won office. It looks O'Dummell is gonna lose bad, like that tea bagging mafia asshole Paladino in NY.

[fraga]

Clueless twat....just get naked already...

[DMX7]

Clueless twat....just get naked already...

Don't worry. She will be soon. Palin is getting pretty close as well. But the patience won't last as long with Christine.

[Stringer_Bell]

Youtube comments are awesome:


trollschool
15 minutes ago
I suppose its easy to get confused over details when you're giving head on Satan's altar.

[Veterinarian]

lol tea party. The short bus wing of the Republican party.

[boutons_deux]

Mediocrity, ignorance, St Ronnie's "facts are stupid", lies, propaganda are Repug/conservative/tea bagger guiding principles.

[rjv]

the revolt of the masses. if this is what happens every time on of 'us' champions the people then we are really screwed. the tea party has been like communism up to this point, only theoretically functional.

[Crookshanks]

Keep laughing and keep dreaming - I guess that's what's keeping you going as you see the hurricane force winds coming to wipe out the democrats.

[clambake]

skanks takes a shot at the katrina dead.

nice.

[balli]

Keep laughing and keep dreaming - I guess that's what's keeping you going as you see the hurricane force winds coming to wipe out the democrats.

lol stupid fucking cunts. You and her both, are enormous morons. At least she's moderately attractive tho.

[elbamba]

I don't know if I could ever vote for anyone that is unfamiliar with the 14th amendment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

but,but,but, it's not in the constitution..:lmao

[Blake]

Keep laughing and keep dreaming - I guess that's what's keeping you going as you see the hurricane force winds coming to wipe out the democrats.

This is a depressingly sad post.

Not because the democrats might get "wiped out" , but because there are hannity/limbaugh nuthugging voters like you that would still vote a fucking moron like Christine O'Donnell into office just because she is the GOP candidate.

Just incredibly depressingly stupidly sad.

[ploto]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/362219/october-14-2010/transitive-property-of-christine-o-donnell

[Wild Cobra]

Christine gets Absolutely PWNED. Crowd laughs out loud at her.

miwSljJAzqg
Well, so far, I only watched just past the 3 minute point. At 2:50, she says "Where in the constitution is the [not sure what she said] church and state? I couldn't make out what she said, but it was either a misstatement, or she reworded something. She was clearly asking what I did in a different post earlier. Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state

I dare someone to show me.

Anyway, I looked for a transcript so I could figure I would watch the whole debate:

entire debate (http://www.wdel.com/video.php?v=wdelsenatedenate.flv)

The opening BS continues till just after 4:30, when the debate starts. Almost 10 minutes into it now. So far, she has good solid answers.

[clambake]

she thinks its ok for evolution to be taught in school.

[Wild Cobra]

she thinks its ok for evolution to be taught in school.
Yes. So?

She's not imposing it. She's not imposing the flip side of it. She wants the local schools to decide. Not your Uncle Sam.

Can't you understand the difference?

Also...

By the time I heard the second laugh in the complete video, I think the crowd is laughing with her. Not at her.

So far, at the 30 minute mark, this debate is clearly favoring Coons. Not the outcome, but the moderator! She is holding her own real well.

[clambake]

let me help, again.

she thinks its ok to teach evolution in school.....and she is imposing the flip side.

[Wild Cobra]

let me help, again.

she thinks its ok to teach evolution in school.....and she is imposing the flip side.
Yes she does. She also thinks it's OK to teach ID.

She thinks it's OK for the local schools to dictate their own course material and disagrees with the schools being dictated what they can and cannot teach.

Can you read the written words and listed to the spoken words instead of spinning?

She's not imposing either view. She is supporting the 10th amendment.

[Wild Cobra]

You guys should watch this. By 58 minutes, she's kicking Coon's ass!

[clambake]

Yes she does. She also thinks it's OK to teach ID.
she doesn't think it's "ok". she thinks it should be required.


She thinks it's OK for the local schools to dictate their own course material and disagrees with the schools being dictated what they can and cannot teach.
let me help you, again. she thinks its ok for local schools to decide if they teach evolution.


Can you read the written words and listed to the spoken words instead of spinning?
i've heard her speak, many times. why read it?


She's not imposing either view.
she is clearly imposing her view, and you can't see it.

that's why i keep saying "let me help you"

She is supporting the 10th amendment.
the catch phrase that lures the prey.

[Blake]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/362219/october-14-2010/transitive-property-of-christine-o-donnell

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

she doesn't think it's "ok". she thinks it should be required.


let me help you, again. she thinks its ok for local schools to decide if they teach evolution.


i've heard her speak, many times. why read it?


she is clearly imposing her view, and you can't see it.

that's why i keep saying "let me help you"

the catch phrase that lures the prey.
All that, and no evidence.

OK...

Surly there are unedited soundbites, in context that I haven't heard if I take you at your word. In all my searched so far, I never heard any such thing, when in complete context. Surely you can show me something.

[Wild Cobra]

You should watch the video I linked. It's only 82 minutes and change.

I give the win to O'Donnell. Real answers, Coons, just political sidestepping, and even does what he accuser her of.

[clambake]

you've already heard it.....but you set aside some of your special bipolar moments for people like her.

[Wild Cobra]

you've already heard it.....but you set aside some of your special bipolar moments for people like her.
If you heard it, then you know she kicked his ass.

[clambake]

yes, she will kick his ass in huge bipolar proportions.

[Wild Cobra]

yes, she will kick his ass in huge bipolar proportions.
Not necessarily. The media is clearly with coons. What I have seen is favoring her, and talking things about her out of context. Not enough people take the time for such lengthy things. Feel they already have enough information.

[clambake]

Not necessarily. The media is clearly with coons. What I have seen is favoring her, and talking things about her out of context. Not enough people take the time for such lengthy things. Feel they already have enough information.

you said she's kicking his ass. will she?

[clambake]

What I have seen is favoring her

and this is why i say "let me help you"

[Blake]

If you heard it, then you know she kicked his ass.

in that 8 minute clip, I saw how she kicked her own ass.

her camp can try to spin it how they want, but it was very clear that she had no idea what the 1st amendment states.

[FromWayDowntown]

She had to be told that there is an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:

“The government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell asked again.

Notwithstanding Wild Cobra's predictable word parsing -- whether the concept of a separation of church and state is stated explicitly in the First Amendment, that construction is unquestionably a correct statement of the legal effect of the Establishment Clause -- it's beyond appalling that a candidate for a high public office like the United States Senate could be so perilously close to winning that office while lacking the basic knowledge that the First Amendment categorically prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion.

[Wild Cobra]

you said she's kicking his ass. will she?
Yes, in the actual full length debate. Not by what the public sees in edited news broadcasts.

[Wild Cobra]

in that 8 minute clip, I saw how she kicked her own ass.

her camp can try to spin it how they want, but it was very clear that she had no idea what the 1st amendment states.
Please explain. She seemed to nail it if you ask me.

Maybe you should watch the 80 minutes instead of an edited 8 minutes.

You need to stop being spoon feed what others want you to hear, and listen to the unedited version.

[Wild Cobra]

She had to be told that there is an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:

“The government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell asked again.


No, he reworded it, and she questioned his rewording of it.

I suggest you watch and listen again.

She asked for him to identity the five guarantees in the first. He couldn't answer. Edited out, right?

[clambake]

watching 80 minutes of this chick is, without question, bipolar.

[Wild Cobra]

watching 80 minutes of this chick is, without question, bipolar.
Is that why you are happy with revisionist history?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not enough people take the time for such lengthy things. Feel they already have enough information.

Irony alert!

[Blake]

Please explain. She seemed to nail it if you ask me.

Maybe you should watch the 80 minutes instead of an edited 8 minutes.

You need to stop being spoon feed what others want you to hear, and listen to the unedited version.


She had to be told that there is an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:

“The government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell asked again.

Notwithstanding Wild Cobra's predictable word parsing -- whether the concept of a separation of church and state is stated explicitly in the First Amendment, that construction is unquestionably a correct statement of the legal effect of the Establishment Clause -- it's beyond appalling that a candidate for a high public office like the United States Senate could be so perilously close to winning that office while lacking the basic knowledge that the First Amendment categorically prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion.

[Wild Cobra]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

The government shall make no establishment of religion
That is two entire different things. She caught it, and questioned it. He is the one who didn't know the first. When she later asked him questions about the first, he couldn't answer it.

[clambake]

Is that why you are happy with revisionist history?

the last administration was happy with it. is that why you're happy with it?

[Wild Cobra]

the last administration was happy with it. is that why you're happy with it?
What I mean is you are happy with the way the media is revising the recent history of the debate. Was that too subtle for you?

[clambake]

What I mean is you are happy with the way the media is revising the recent history of the debate. Was that too subtle for you?

i pay zero attention to what the media says.

[Blake]

That is two entire different things. She caught it, and questioned it. He is the one who didn't know the first. When she later asked him questions about the first, he couldn't answer it.

it's not two entirely different things. The idea got across just fine.

She also was not arguing the semantics of what he said. She was arguing that ID should be allowed in public schools if the local school district wants to teach it.

[Wild Cobra]

it's not two entirely different things. The idea got across just fine.

She also was not arguing the semantics of what he said. She was arguing that ID should be allowed in public schools if the local school district wants to teach it.
False on the first, correct on the second.

[Wild Cobra]

it's not two entirely different things.
It is. Please don't tell me you are that ignorant.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
The above in simple terms means that the government cannot write laws controlling established religion.

The government shall make no establishment of religion
The above here means that the government cannot make a religion, or deem one to be the only one, etc.

The idea got across just fine.

Sure, it was a good political game of words. He is a great politician. You and others fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Aren't you tired of professional grifters?

[Blake]

False on the first, correct on the second.

if the 2nd is true, the 1st is really irrelevant. In my opinion, she had no idea the word "religion" was even in the 1st amendment to begin with.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It is. Please don't tell me you are that ignorant.

The above in simple terms means that the government cannot write laws controlling established religion.

The above here means that the government cannot make a religion, or deem one to be the only one, etc.

Sure, it was a good political game of words. He is a great politician. You and others fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Aren't you tired of professional grifters?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Using your logic it is clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow people to bear arms to form well regulated militias.

[Blake]

It is. Please don't tell me you are that ignorant.

The above in simple terms means that the government cannot write laws controlling established religion.

The above here means that the government cannot make a religion, or deem one to be the only one, etc.

For the purpose of this particular discussion regarding teaching ID in schools, it is only relevant to those trying to wipe the dirt off of O'Donell's face.


Sure, it was a good political game of words. He is a great politician. You and others fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

I didn't feel like he was trying to pull a fast one.

If anything, O'Donnell's 'camp' has played the spinning game all day long over what she said.


Aren't you tired of professional grifters?

I'm tired of hearing about a GOP senatorial candidate from Delaware who makes our education system look more and more like crap on an almost daily basis.

Her lack of knowledge regarding the constitutional amendments is beyond disgusting.

[Wild Cobra]

if the 2nd is true, the 1st is really irrelevant. In my opinion, she had no idea the word "religion" was even in the 1st amendment to begin with.
My God. It was not irrelevant in in the debate.

Take your bias out of the equation for a moment. She asked what the five guarantees in the first were, after they were wresting with the evolution/ID question. He could not answer, and his rewrite of the first part was laughable wrong. She questioned it. In context, it is clear.

I would say by all I heard, she understands the constitution real well. Just doesn't remember numbers well.

Again, watch the 80 minutes, instead of edited clips. I dare you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Take your bias out of the equation for a moment.

Irony alert!

[FromWayDowntown]

It is. Please don't tell me you are that ignorant.

The above in simple terms means that the government cannot write laws controlling established religion.

So the Free Exercise Clause -- which provides that government cannot limit the free exercise of religion -- is wholly superfluous, since, after all, the Establishment Clause (which you quoted) is, apparently, the mechanism prohibiting Congress from limiting how established religion is practiced?


The above here means that the government cannot make a religion, or deem one to be the only one, etc.

Hmmmm. I've always thought that was exactly what the Establishment Clause did.

I should have gone to the Wild Cobra school of Constitutional Law; obviously, the universally-understood meanings of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses (to say nothing of any construction of those provisions) are completely untenable.

[Blake]

My God. It was not irrelevant in in the debate.

Explain exactly how his slight miswording is relevant to the ID debate.


Take your bias out of the equation for a moment. She asked what the five guarantees in the first were, after they were wresting with the evolution/ID question. He could not answer, and his rewrite of the first part was laughable wrong. She questioned it. In context, it is clear.

How does any of the five guarantees of the 1st Amendment support her stand on how ID should be taught in school if the district wants to teach it?


I would say by all I heard, she understands the constitution real well. Just doesn't remember numbers well.

From what I heard, she doesn't understand the 1st Amendment.


, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"


Again, watch the 80 minutes, instead of edited clips. I dare you.

Na, that's overkill and I'm betting I'll still come away with the same opinion of her being a dumbass.

[DMX7]

It was like she had never even read the constitution. It's not that long, and yet, she didn't even know which amendments pertained to her core principles.

[Wild Cobra]

For the purpose of this particular discussion regarding teaching ID in schools, it is only relevant to those trying to wipe the dirt off of O'Donell's face.
I don't understand how you could think that. Her views are clear when it comes to the 10th amendment.

I didn't feel like he was trying to pull a fast one.

If anything, O'Donnell's 'camp' has played the spinning game all day long over what she said.
No, he pulls fast ones, and what you call them spinning, looks like to me trying to get the truth past the lies.

I'm tired of hearing about a GOP senatorial candidate from Delaware who makes our education system look more and more like crap on an almost daily basis.
All she is doing is exposing what's wrong about it. Taking the paper bag of the head.

Her lack of knowledge regarding the constitutional amendments is beyond disgusting.
Have an unedited example I can consider? I tell you, seeing the 80 minutes in full context tells me she knows it well.

[Wild Cobra]

Using your logic it is clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow people to bear arms to form well regulated militias.
Not to form a militia, but so we can when needed.

[Wild Cobra]

Explain exactly how his slight miswording is relevant to the ID debate.

Point is, that it shouldn't be a part of the debate the way the liberals use it. "Congress shall not make no law..." would include their delegated agencies not being able to tell schools how to teach biblical things.


How does any of the five guarantees of the 1st Amendment support her stand on how ID should be taught in school if the district wants to teach it?

It doesn't. That wasn't my point. I responded to Coons not knowing the first amendment. He couldn't answer that question, and his reworded establishment part proves it.


From what I heard, she doesn't understand the 1st Amendment.

Please show me a quote, a video, something that shows just that. Something in context and not edited.

Put up or shut up.


Na, that's overkill and I'm betting I'll still come away with the same opinion of her being a dumbass.

Fine, Show me something else that proves your point.

[elbamba]

She had to be told that there is an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment:

“The government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell asked again.

Notwithstanding Wild Cobra's predictable word parsing -- whether the concept of a separation of church and state is stated explicitly in the First Amendment, that construction is unquestionably a correct statement of the legal effect of the Establishment Clause -- it's beyond appalling that a candidate for a high public office like the United States Senate could be so perilously close to winning that office while lacking the basic knowledge that the First Amendment categorically prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion.

I could not agree more. There are arguments, whether they are good is questionable, one can take as to the intent of the founders with respect to the Establishment Clause. Instead, this moron would rather argue that because specific words used by her opponent are not in the Clause itself, that he is inventing the idea himself or changing generations of accepted interpretation. Sad.

[Wild Cobra]

I could not agree more. There are arguments, whether they are good is questionable, one can take as to the intent of the founders with respect to the Establishment Clause. Instead, this moron would rather argue that because specific words used by her opponent are not in the Clause itself, that he is inventing the idea himself or changing generations of accepted interpretation. Sad.
That is not what the exchanged words were about.

Watch the video and stop lying about what was said.

[elbamba]

That is not what the exchanged words were about.

Watch the video and stop lying about what was said.

That is what it sounded like to me. I could certainly be wrong. However, because she did not even know what the 14th amendment contains, I am going to take a guess that she has no clue what is contained in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

That is what it sounded like to me. I could certainly be wrong. However, because she did not even know what the 14th amendment contains, I am going to take a guess that she has no clue what is contained in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution.
The whole thing boils down to O'Donnell saying the federal government has no right to dictate what is taught in our schools. Because of the 10th amendment, it is a right for the states and lower government levels. Coon's reworded the 1st amendment. I believe to show try to make it apply. Maybe he didn't know it. He is either ignorant, or spinning it. That's when she appeared to some like she didn't know it. She was questioning his response. Not the constitution. At some point, when she asked him what the five guarantees of the first amendment are, he couldn't answer her.

Watch the video with an open mind.

She is the clear winner if you follow close, and are affected by grifters.

[DMX7]

I could not agree more. There are arguments, whether they are good is questionable, one can take as to the intent of the founders with respect to the Establishment Clause. Instead, this moron would rather argue that because specific words used by her opponent are not in the Clause itself, that he is inventing the idea himself or changing generations of accepted interpretation. Sad.

That isn't even what she was arguing. When Chris Coons spelled it out for her, she was still equally puzzled. Suggesting she was even making that "verbatim" argument is giving her the benefit of the doubt when there really isn't any. She is completely ignorant.

[fraga]

Ignorant...you're so kind...she's dumb as toast...and I loves me some toast...

[Wild Cobra]

Ignorant...you're so kind...she's dumb as toast...and I loves me some toast...
Nobody yet has shown me enough to make that point.

You can take anyone on camera, and from several thousand statements, find something to use against them.

I challenge you to watch any of that material with full context before and after. Not just edited soundbites. This chick is smart. Not a good speaker, but smart.

[DMX7]

Nobody yet has shown me enough to make that point.

You can take anyone on camera, and from several thousand statements, find something to use against them.

I challenge you to watch any of that material with full context before and after. Not just edited soundbites. This chick is smart. Not a good speaker, but smart.

I have a feeling you won't be convinced, but I'll start us off anyway.

Exhibit A:

"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."

-Christine O'Donnell on The O'Reilly Factor

Exhibit B:

"God may choose to heal someone from cancer, yet that person still has a great deal of medical bills. The outstanding bills do not determine whether or not the patient has been healed by God."

-Christine O'Donnell in "The Case for Chastity"

Exhibit C:

KB0TLgcNesU

Exhibit D:

"America is now a socialist economy. The definition of a socialist economy is when 50% or more your economy is dependent on the federal government."

-Christine O'Donnell in 2010 campaign speech

Exhibit E:

"During the primary, I heard the audible voice of God. He said "credibility".

-Christine O'Donnell to "News Journal"

Exhibit F:

"A candidate said several years ago, 'I'm not concerned the reason you vote for me as long as you vote for me.'"

-Christine O'Donnell at press conference

[DMX7]

OUT of CONTEXT!!! Out of CONTEXT!!! lol

[Wild Cobra]

OUT of CONTEXT!!! Out of CONTEXT!!! lol
So you also live in a "soundbite world."

I suggest you watch the 82 minute video I posted. See is you think any of that type of poor wording came across.

[DMX7]

So you also live in a "soundbite world."

I suggest you watch the 82 minute video I posted. See is you think any of that type of poor wording came across.

There is no context in which almost all of the stupid shit she says make sense.

[jack sommerset]

WC, she pretty much is a stupid candidate/person but then again so was Biden and he became VP. Only if the other repug guy would have beat her. At the end of the day that is why she is BIG NEWS. Repugs had the senate.

If for some crazyass reason she wins, if I was barry, I would just pack up my shit and leave right then and there.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, she pretty much is a stupid candidate/person but then again so was Biden and he became VP. Only if the other repug guy would have beat her. At the end of the day that is why she is BIG NEWS. Repugs had the senate.

If for some crazyass reason she wins, if I was barry, I would just pack up my shit and leave right then and there.
She has said some crazy things, but she did real well in that debate. Are you going to dislike any candidate for a few character flaws? If so, there is no one to vote for in the end. Nobody's perfect.

Watch it by chance?

[fraga]

This chick is smart. Not a good speaker, but smart.

Out of context...

Y_4if1x1pH8

In context...

ZXvV11-Xwpw

[boutons_deux]

Never-elected and about-to-be-trashed O'Dummel equals Joe Biden?

Typical right-wing false equivalence, as blatant as Jack's ignorance.

[Wild Cobra]

So she got the facts slightly wrong. From Scientific American magazine:

Human-Animal Chimeras; Some experiments can disquietingly blur the line between species (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-animal-chimeras); June 27, 2005:


Irving Weissman of Stanford University and his colleagues pioneered these chimera experiments in 1988 when they created mice with fully human immune systems for the study of AIDS. Later, the Stanford group and StemCells, Inc., which Weissman co-founded, also transplanted human stem cells into the brains of newborn mice as preliminary models for neural research. And working with foetal sheep, Esmail Zanjani of the University of Nevada at Reno has created adult animals with human cells integrated throughout their body.
Weissman and others, for example, have envisioned one day making a mouse with fully "humanised" brain tissue.

Who knows. maybe they did make a fully human function human brain in a mouse since?

[DMX7]

Chris Coons is about to run the rape train all over this hoe.

[DMX7]

So she got the facts slightly wrong. From Scientific American magazine:

:lmao



Who knows. maybe they did make a fully human function human brain in a mouse since?

You are so stupid...

[Wild Cobra]

:lol
It's a pretty dumb thing to laugh about. This story was out there more than Five years ago. She knew about it. You didn't. The experiments for 22 years or so. What she said, as unlikely as it is, could be true.

Maybe we should laugh at those who didn't know this, like you?

[DMX7]

It's a pretty dumb thing to laugh about. this story was out there more than Five years ago. She knew about it. You didn't. The experiments for 22 years or so. What she said, as unlikely as it is, could be true.

Transplanting human stem cells into animals is not even in the same league as "cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains".

Transplanting stem cells is old news. You're the one who just revealed your ignorance on the issue. And that you think her confusion is reasonable is even more revealing.

[jack sommerset]

She has said some crazy things, but she did real well in that debate. Are you going to dislike any candidate for a few character flaws? If so, there is no one to vote for in the end. Nobody's perfect.

Watch it by chance?

I want her to win then I want to fuck her.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao



You are so stupid...
A fully functioning brain wouldn't be completely human, but could have added traits beyond animal intelligence. This now depends of where you draw that line called "functioning." It can mean different things.

[Wild Cobra]

I want her to win then I want to fuck her.
In the back seat of a 1969 Muscle car... Sounds like old times...

[Wild Cobra]

Transplanting human stem cells into animals is not even in the same league as "cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains".
No shit Sherlock.

Have to do gene splicing, or strategic stem cell transplants.

Transplanting stem cells is old news. You're the one who just revealed your ignorance on the issue. And that you think her confusion is reasonable is even more revealing.
No, you are ignorant for not understanding my level of understanding.

Who knows what all happened in those experiments. At least what she said does have a basis in truth. It cannot be demonstrated that she made anything up. Who knows the extent of rumors or papers going around during her college years.

Love how you liberals are always "guilty (or dumb) until proven innocent." Claim to be open minded, but are so fucking bigoted.

[fraga]

A fully functioning brain wouldn't be completely human, but could have added traits beyond animal intelligence. This now depends of where you draw that line called "functioning." It can mean different things.

You have derailed...

[DMX7]

No shit Sherlock.

Have to do gene splicing, or strategic stem cell transplants.


You have to do more than that. And yet you had accepted her inability to differentiate the two as acceptable.

Thanks for agreeing with me now though. :toast


A fully functioning brain wouldn't be completely human, but could have added traits beyond animal intelligence. This now depends of where you draw that line called "functioning." It can mean different things.

"Fully functioning" is pretty unambiguous. Nice try though...

[Blake]

Please show me a quote, a video, something that shows just that. Something in context and not edited.

Put up or shut up.

Fine, Show me something else that proves your point.

I already did, dumbfuck.

This is the exact quote from the 80 minute video which I will post again:


"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

I triple dog dare you to watch that 20 seconds worth of question.

:facepalm

[DMX7]

No, you are ignorant for not understanding my level of understanding.


Your understanding from Wikipedia and 20 seconds worth of Google searches...

[Wild Cobra]

You have to do more than that. And yet you've accepted her inability to differentiate the two as acceptable. Thanks for agreeing with me. :toast
At least I don't expect someone without a scientific education to know the difference.


"Fully functioning" is pretty unambiguous. Nice try though...
I can agree for the most part. Still, I don't expect a layman's understanding of science to understand the difference. What if the brain had a "fully functioning" pituitary only? What if PET scans showed it replicated the human pattern? What were the researchers saying?

There would be no way to make the "fully human" claim, if it means everything.

Look, it boils down to this in my view. The story she says is true with some changes. Easily accounted for by misunderstanding.

[Wild Cobra]

Your understanding from Wikipedia and 20 seconds worth of Google searches...
Buy moron. I see you changed the subject because you see I'm right, and cannot accept it.

I'm not a subscriber, but I buy Scientific American from time to time. Seen some rather interesting articles over the years.

Yes, I googled it to find it. At least I looked to see she wasn't completely full of shit like you thought.

[DMX7]

At least I don't expect someone without a scientific education to know the difference.


I'm so sorry, Dr. Wild Cobra. Please forgive me. :lol

[DMX7]

Buy moron. I see you changed the subject because you see I'm right, and cannot accept it.

"Buy moron" is exactly what you're doing if you like the Tea Party candidates.

Bye! :toast

[Wild Cobra]

You guys are way to biased to be open minded. You give Coon's a break for misstating the 1st amendment and more. An amendment that any politician should be ably to cite from memory, but chastise O'Donnell for misstating obscure scientific work?

My God...

That is pathetic.

So what. She doesn't know all the amendments by number. Big whoop-t-do. If that's the best you guys have, then... Well, you aint got shit.

[Blake]

You guys are way to biased to be open minded. You give Coon's a break for misstating the 1st amendment and more.

it was an irrelevant misstatement in which the point was still clearly made.

Interesting that you are open minded about O'Donnell's whack statement but close the mind door fast on Coon.


So what. She doesn't know all the amendments by number. Big whoop-t-do. If that's the best you guys have, then... Well, you aint got shit.

No, the best is that she doesn't/didn't know that separation of church and state is alluded to in the Constitution.

It's a big enough of a whoop-t-do to crap on a potential law-making witch [allegedly] that doesn't know the most basic of federal law.

[boutons_deux]

News today is that McDummell couldn't name a single Dem senator.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/362219/october-14-2010/transitive-property-of-christine-o-donnell

ouch. that was painful.

edit

I take it back.. mastubating = gay is funny

[RandomGuy]

You guys are way to biased to be open minded. You give Coon's a break for misstating the 1st amendment and more. An amendment that any politician should be ably to cite from memory, but chastise O'Donnell for misstating obscure scientific work?

My God...

That is pathetic.

So what. She doesn't know all the amendments by number. Big whoop-t-do. If that's the best you guys have, then... Well, you aint got shit.

actually, I didn't think O'donnel was that bad. Until she got incredulous about what was in the first amendment.

If you had asked me about the 14th, 17th, and 16th amendments, I would have been about as flat footed.

[Wild Cobra]

actually, I didn't think O'donnel was that bad. Until she got incredulous about what was in the first amendment.

I thought her hounding that coon dog over not knowing it was funny.

[Wild Cobra]

ouch. that was painful.

Yes, it was.

Haven't you ever had a brain-fart?

I don't judge anyone from a few soundbites. As I pointed out earlier, from thousands of statements made, you can find some misstatements, mistakes, etc. on everyone.

As for the adultery thing in the military. This is fact.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, it was.

Haven't you ever had a brain-fart?

I don't judge anyone from a few soundbites. As I pointed out earlier, from thousands of statements made, you can find some misstatements, mistakes, etc. on everyone.

As for the adultery thing in the military. This is fact.

well, brain fart is not as bad as not knowing a single supreme court case.

That is simply ignorant.

[RandomGuy]

I thought her hounding that coon dog over not knowing it was funny.

Funny in a sad way.

Seperation of church and state is in the first amendment.

[Wild Cobra]

Funny in a sad way.

Seperation of church and state is in the first amendment.
No it isn't. It's not a separation like spoken about. It doesn't use those words. It does not say that religion cannot influence government. The separation is one-way.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where is it written that there is a wall of separation, which would divide government away from religion?

What you are talking about would "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[Wild Cobra]

well, brain fart is not as bad as not knowing a single supreme court case.

That is simply ignorant.
Did she not know, or just have a brain-fart?

It's happened to me before. Hasn't it ever happened to you? Are you saying that you have never had a moment where you know the answer, or a persons name, or something else, and you just have a temporary loss of recall?

Yes, it looks bad. That doesn't mean she didn't have an opinion of any. My last job interview, I did something similar. I was asked a question about... (nobody's business). Anyway, I suddenly had dozens of thoughts in my mind. Not being a good orator myself, I was trying to sift through which one to say. Didn't realize how long I, you know, seconds can be a killer. I did pick one and elaborated. I could have easily blown that though.

I can really relate to someone who isn't a polished politician. That's why I've been using the term "grifter."

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't judge anyone from a few soundbites.

someone needs to punch you in the face.

[ChumpDumper]

That's Doctor Part Changer to you!

[Jacob1983]

All of you guys talking shit about O'Donnell know that you would love to have your way with her if you had the chance.

[ChumpDumper]

All of you guys talking shit about O'Donnell know that you would love to have your way with her if you had the chance.i'm sure some do.

Stupid chicks are often easy.

She admits she's promiscuous.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I can really relate to someone who isn't a polished politician. That's why I've been using the term "grifter."

O'Donnell is the "grifter." Is that you're assessment?

[ChumpDumper]

Doctor Part Changer called O'Donnell a grifter?

In her defense?

[Oh, Gee!!]

All of you guys talking shit about O'Donnell know that you would love to have your way with her if you had the chance.

She's cute. So, what?

[Winehole23]

Doctor Part Changer called O'Donnell a grifter?

In her defense?WC may not have had a very precise idea of what a grifter is when he used the word. That's my take.

[Winehole23]

OTOH, maybe he admires a grifter.

[Soul_Patch]

Wait...So you are giving her a pass on not knowing much, if anything about the Constitution?

While at the same time she is the candidate from the party that claims to be champions of said constitution?

Sure, i can't name all the amendments and tell you about them...but then again, i also am not running for public office on the platform of being a constitutionalists!!

Give me a break, she is worthless...how on earth can you possibly defend her? You really want people like this running our country? What in the fuck has this country turned into??

[RandomGuy]

i'm sure some do.

Stupid chicks are often easy.

She admits she's promiscuous.

Idiocracy here we come.

[RandomGuy]

No it isn't. It's not a separation like spoken about. It doesn't use those words. It does not say that religion cannot influence government. The separation is one-way.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where is it written that there is a wall of separation, which would divide government away from religion?

What you are talking about would "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The long standing court interpretation of that is that government may not directly or indirectly favor one religion or another. One has to build a fairly high wall for that to happen.

When you start putting one religion or another's symbols on government buildings, you are essentially favoring a certain religion.

A lot of fundamentalist Christians who essentially want to institute a theocracy hate that secular idea. As does Al Qaeda. Both groups think that government should be in the business of telling you what religion you should worship and when.

[Blake]

Wait...So you are giving her a pass on not knowing much, if anything about the Constitution?

and at the same time, he is coming down hard on Coon for slightly misstating what the 1st Amendment says

Par for the course for the doctor

[rjv]

o'donnell is a bufoon, undoubtedly, but that she gets the hammer while so many other morons on both sides of the house and senate get a pass is a bit baffling. don't get me wrong, she is not the direction we should go in. while she is a breath of fresh air in that she represents the more average voice, she is more of a concern because her grasp of issues at the core always seems to be represented by responses that seem perfunctory at best.

looking at her comments on the fully functioning human brain in mice for instance, one gets hyperbole and paranoia as well as no input whatsoever on the neuroscience involved. however, the overrall point is not as patently absurd as it seems on the surface. even scientists and bioethicists have concerns regarding animal-human chimeras and, ethically speaking, they do present a challenge to the scientific and legal communities. now she is probably not aware that she is presenting a "what makes a human being a human" argument but inevitably the subject does get into some very murky territory. typically, the presence of a biologically human brain inside an organism that is able to propel and feed itself is accepted as clear biological evidence that the organism is a human being. but this logic would perhaps force an ethical person to grant the chimeric mouse a right to life, which seems preposterous. but if we follow our intuition and decide that this mouse is not a human being, we are forced to conclude that the presence of a fully-human brain inside an alert, responsive organism is not sufficient criterion for inclusion within the family of human beings, which not only violates common sense but challenges the very foundation of universal human rights.

could a mouse ever develop the consiousness of a brain. i'm sure you would be extremely hard pressed to find a biologist to ever believe so (and to date, the chimeric mice have maintained purely mouse characteristics). but what about a primate? well all this leaves out the quantum behavior of the brain, consciousness, and neural plasticity not to mention many other aspects of the "science" involved here and for good reason. my point is not to discuss the neuroscience here but rather to point out that o'donnel was not that out of line to bring it up, even if she did do so in typical tea-party fashion.

this is consistent with her responses on immigration, intelligent design and the seperation of church and state. she constantly goes back to the idea that the government is out to control our minds by force feeding false science on us and letting science get out of control. she tells us that we are going to be overrun by mexico and taxed to death.

now, that is not to say there is no merit there. at the core, she has some fundamentally accurate thoughts. but then in the same breath she almost always contradicts herself by advocating other aspects of government, corporate america or religion that are just as problematic for our society. so then we are forced to defer back to the status quo politician. because her version of the mass man is just too unsatisfying to the political palate. which seems to be the tea party in a nutshell at this time. an initially good idea, with some basically appealing aspects, that has since been hijacked by the fringes and the corporate right.

[FromWayDowntown]

The whole thing boils down to O'Donnell saying the federal government has no right to dictate what is taught in our schools. Because of the 10th amendment, it is a right for the states and lower government levels.

This is my favorite point of all, because it certainly argues that:

1. the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is not applicable to the States; or

2. the Tenth Amendment trumps the Establishment Clause.

Neither of those things are true -- and the latter absolutely cannot be true. And if neither is true, the point is absurd. If the Establishment Clause prohibits teaching religious concepts in public school classrooms (and there is a long line of decisional law that says absolutely it does) then States have no room to teach religion or religious concepts in public school classrooms.

I do miss the old days when parents -- not States -- could decide for themselves the extent to which their children were exposed to religious concepts and ideas.

One of the philosophical inconsistencies of the mixing of conservative governance with Christian fundamentalism is the idea that somehow government should be injecting itself into an area of personal belief by using the mechanisms of the State to all but indoctrinate young children, no matter the wishes of those kids' parents. If conservatism truly favors less governmental interference than more, the insistence upon using public schools as a vehicle for teaching religious concepts seems be anything but a conservative idea.

[Blake]

o'donnell is a bufoon, undoubtedly, but that she gets the hammer while so many other morons on both sides of the house and senate get a pass is a bit baffling.

what other morons have been given a pass?

[TeyshaBlue]

what other morons have been given a pass?

define moron in this context.

[Blake]

This is my favorite point of all, because it certainly argues that:

1. the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is not applicable to the States; or

2. the Tenth Amendment trumps the Establishment Clause.

Neither of those things are true -- and the latter absolutely cannot be true. And if neither is true, the point is absurd. If the Establishment Clause prohibits teaching religious concepts in public school classrooms (and there is a long line of decisional law that says absolutely it does) then States have no room to teach religion or religious concepts in public school classrooms.

I do miss the old days when parents -- not States -- could decide for themselves the extent to which their children were exposed to religious concepts and ideas.

One of the philosophical inconsistencies of the mixing of conservative governance with Christian fundamentalism is the idea that somehow government should be injecting itself into an area of personal belief by using the mechanisms of the State to all but indoctrinate young children, no matter the wishes of those kids' parents. If conservatism truly favors less governmental interference than more, the insistence upon using public schools as a vehicle for teaching religious concepts seems be anything but a conservative idea.

you mean the intelligent design theory is a religious concept?

God forbid.

[Blake]

define moron in this context.

moron: (n) Christine O'Donnell

see also: Dr. Parts Changer

[boutons_deux]

BRAIN FART! Yes, WC, that's what it was, and very plausible, credible.

Since the tea bagging bitch has shit for brains, brain farts are completely natural.

[rjv]

what other morons have been given a pass?

the point is that there are so many imbeciles in washington that are actually in power now and actually more damaging to us at this time than she is. she is not going to get elected and in the meantime we are going to venture on with the same GOP/dem alliance that has turned this nation into a subordinate for the corporate oligarchy that runs this country.

she would have been no different of course.

[vy65]

I gots me a question: She says she'd repeal the 14th Amendment in the youtubes (and seems to kind of not really know what the Amendment is). The 14th Amendment prohibits states from discriminating on the basis of race, has spawned volumes of civil rights protections, and is the basis for incorporating the bill of rights against the states.

Do O'Donnell supports agree with her that it should be repealed? That could mean, amongst other things, taking away the legal basis for protecting the right to bear arms that the court seems to be extending recently?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Again, when did ignorance become a positive for public office candidacy? this isn't about polished versus unpolished for fuck sake! its not like the problem is with her oratory skills...

shit, I live in Argentina and even I know where the concept of separation of church and state comes from. I don't pretend to know the American constitution by heart, but such an important part of how America is built... you'd think someone running for office in the states would bother to look it up before talking about it.

[baseline bum]

All of you guys talking shit about O'Donnell know that you would love to have your way with her if you had the chance.

What does that have to do with anything, even if it was true? I'd never vote Kim Kardashian to public office.

[baseline bum]

Idiocracy here we come.

LOL. She should have just said her opponent talks like a fag.

[jack sommerset]

I would like to see her and Palin eat each other out

[Stringer_Bell]

I would like to see her and Palin eat each other out

:tu

WTF is up with this "Dr Part Changer" business? And since when is grifter a good thing? And why do I always miss the good, ridiculous shit here?

[Wild Cobra]

someone needs to punch you in the face.
Why?

Cannot counter my arguments, so you want to silence me? Is that it?

[Wild Cobra]

WC may not have had a very precise idea of what a grifter is when he used the word. That's my take.
Do you disagree that nearly all career politicians partake in cons upon the public and voters?

[clambake]

your arguments have been deemed worthless.....by a professional.

[Wild Cobra]

The long standing court interpretation of that is that government may not directly or indirectly favor one religion or another. One has to build a fairly high wall for that to happen.

When you start putting one religion or another's symbols on government buildings, you are essentially favoring a certain religion.

A lot of fundamentalist Christians who essentially want to institute a theocracy hate that secular idea. As does Al Qaeda. Both groups think that government should be in the business of telling you what religion you should worship and when.
Tell me.

How does a generic religions idea that is part of nearly all religions fit that category. God for example is a title. Not a name. I'm not speaking of religious symbols. Please stop changing my arguments to support your counterpoints.

[Wild Cobra]

I gots me a question: She says she'd repeal the 14th Amendment in the youtubes (and seems to kind of not really know what the Amendment is). The 14th Amendment prohibits states from discriminating on the basis of race, has spawned volumes of civil rights protections, and is the basis for incorporating the bill of rights against the states.

Do O'Donnell supports agree with her that it should be repealed? That could mean, amongst other things, taking away the legal basis for protecting the right to bear arms that the court seems to be extending recently?
I don't recall her words, but didn't she say part of it, not the whole?

[Wild Cobra]

:tu

WTF is up with this "Dr Part Changer" business? And since when is grifter a good thing? And why do I always miss the good, ridiculous shit here?
Well, I am the parts changer. I work with equipment as a mechanical/electrical technician. At first I resented the term, but it is part of my job description.

Hey, I get paid well for it so what the hell. I probably make double or more the income of anyone who is using it. I think that's a safe bet due to their ignorance.

[clambake]

until the conservatives crush your union.

[Wild Cobra]

until the conservatives crush your union.
That would be a good thing. I wouldn't be stuck in a pay scale that goes by time, and could negotiate a better salary. Then we could also get about four or five people fired who are dead weight, protected by the union, if they don't shape up. Profits would be better.

The non-union sector for my line of work pays about 35% more than I make now. However, those jobs are drying up with manufacturing moves, and decreasing a little in wages. My last job moved to Malaysia.

[clambake]

and thats when you'll be offered malaysia wages.

[Wild Cobra]

and thats when you'll be offered malaysia wages.
If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

[DMX7]

Chrisitine would be a career politician by now if she had ever won anything. God knows, she runs every couple of years for a living now.

[hater]

fucking scary man. As scary as that poster AngelLuv thinking Obama is the devil

:lmao

[clambake]

If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

you should keep that bridge and cross over to that 35% private sector job that you claim exist. lol

[clambake]

i just noticed this.

Well, I am the parts changer. I work with equipment as a mechanical/electrical technician. At first I resented the term, but it is part of my job description.

Hey, I get paid well for it so what the hell. I probably make double or more the income of anyone who is using it.


The non-union sector for my line of work pays about 35% more than I make now.

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

The long standing court interpretation of that is that government may not directly or indirectly favor one religion or another. One has to build a fairly high wall for that to happen.

When you start putting one religion or another's symbols on government buildings, you are essentially favoring a certain religion.

A lot of fundamentalist Christians who essentially want to institute a theocracy hate that secular idea. As does Al Qaeda. Both groups think that government should be in the business of telling you what religion you should worship and when.


Tell me.

How does a generic religions idea that is part of nearly all religions fit that category. God for example is a title. Not a name. I'm not speaking of religious symbols. Please stop changing my arguments to support your counterpoints.

I wasn't changing your argument, I was outlining my own.

If you want to get specific, even the "God" reference tends to support one religion ove another.

In this, I think you are being a bit less than honest with yourself: I don't think "God" isn't a title, it is a reference to one of the three Abrahamic monotheistic faiths.

The fact that it is singular implies this.

Most human religions are polytheistic. Why not put "Gods" if it is just a title?

You and I both know that would create a firestorm from Christian fundies who would think of it as introducing polytheistic concepts to government documents.

"God" as a title, also implies that there *is* a God, something a fair minority of people in this country actively DIS-believes.

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minorities such as that from overt and covert persecution.

[RandomGuy]

Where is it written that there is a wall of separation, which would divide government away from religion?

The case you are attempting to argue is that there should be no active seperation of church and state, I would guess.

It is not specifically written that the "must be a formal wall" between them. That is the result of courts having to interpret the prohibition that says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This has widely been regarded, correctly in my view, as prohibiting incorporating religious symbols from Government buildings.

Once you start doing that, you are tacitly stating that religion is backed by the Government, correct?

[boutons_deux]

O’Donnell admits using campaign cash to pay rent

O'Donnell] acknowledges using campaign money to pay part of the rent on her current town house.

Last month, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington declared that O'Donnell is "clearly a criminal" for allegedly using $20,000 of campaign money for personal expenses.

"Ms. O'Donnell has spent years embezzling money from her campaign to cover her personal expenses,"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/odonnell-campaign-cash-pay-rent/

[Wild Cobra]

The case you are attempting to argue is that there should be no active seperation of church and state, I would guess.

It is not specifically written that the "must be a formal wall" between them. That is the result of courts having to interpret the prohibition that says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This has widely been regarded, correctly in my view, as prohibiting incorporating religious symbols from Government buildings.

Once you start doing that, you are tacitly stating that religion is backed by the Government, correct?
What a stretch.

Symbols are not law.

[Wild Cobra]

O’Donnell admits using campaign cash to pay rent

O'Donnell] acknowledges using campaign money to pay part of the rent on her current town house.

Last month, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington declared that O'Donnell is "clearly a criminal" for allegedly using $20,000 of campaign money for personal expenses.

"Ms. O'Donnell has spent years embezzling money from her campaign to cover her personal expenses,"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/odonnell-campaign-cash-pay-rent/
It's a witch hunt...

Her the reasons I heard seem sound. I will bet there is no violation, and this is being trumped up by those who want to see her lose.

[boutons_deux]

"What a stretch.

Symbols are not law."

What a non-sequitur.

Religious symbols on tax-payer-funded, public buildings are illegal, stare decisis (not that stare decisis prevents the Repug activist SCOTUS disrespeking stare decisis).

[Wild Cobra]

"What a stretch.

Symbols are not law."

What a non-sequitur.

Religious symbols on tax-payer-funded, public buildings are illegal, stare decisis (not that stare decisis prevents the Repug activist SCOTUS disrespeking stare decisis).
Only because of activist courts. Not by constitution, in fact since "Congress shall make no law...." it should make sense that the judicial branch cannot make such a law either.

Wait a minute... They cannot make law!

Fucking activist courts.