Reply With Quote
If you heard it, then you know she kicked his ass.
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.
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.
you said she's kicking his ass. will she?
and this is why i say "let me help you"
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.
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.
Yes, in the actual full length debate. Not by what the public sees in edited news broadcasts.
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.
No, he reworded it, and she questioned his rewording of it.
I suggest you watch and listen again.
She asked for him to iden y the five guarantees in the first. He couldn't answer. Edited out, right?
watching 80 minutes of this chick is, without question, bipolar.
Is that why you are happy with revisionist history?
Irony alert!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionThat 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.The government shall make no establishment of religion
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?
i pay zero attention to what the media says.
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.
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.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
The above here means that the government cannot make a religion, or deem one to be the only one, etc.The government shall make no establishment of religion
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?
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.
Using your logic it is clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended to allow people to bear arms to form well regulated militias.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.
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 didn't feel like he was trying to pull a fast one.Sure, it was a good political game of words. He is a great politician. You and others fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
If anything, O'Donnell's 'camp' has played the spinning game all day long over what she said.
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.Aren't you tired of professional grifters?
Her lack of knowledge regarding the cons utional amendments is beyond disgusting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
