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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't judge anyone from a few soundbites.

---

someone needs to punch you in the face.

That's Doctor Part Changer to you!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

i'm sure some do.

Stupid chicks are often easy.

She admits she's promiscuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

Doctor Part Changer called O'Donnell a grifter?

In her defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

She's cute. So, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

OTOH, maybe he admires a grifter.

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

i'm sure some do.

Stupid chicks are often easy.

She admits she's promiscuous.

---

Idiocracy here we come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soul_Patch

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

what other morons have been given a pass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

what other morons have been given a pass?

---

define moron in this context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

define moron in this context.

---

moron: (n) Christine O'Donnell

see also: Dr. Parts Changer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Idiocracy here we come.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

someone needs to punch you in the face.

---

Why?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

I don't recall her words, but didn't she say part of it, not the whole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

: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.

until the conservatives crush your union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

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.

and thats when you'll be offered malaysia wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

and thats when you'll be offered malaysia wages.

---

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

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.

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

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

i just noticed this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

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/o...cash-pay-rent/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/o...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.

"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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.