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

[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 cons ution 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 Cons utional 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 cons ution real well. Just doesn't remember numbers well.

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

, "Where in the Cons ution 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 cons ution. 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 cons utional 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 cons ution or the amendments to the cons ution.

[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 cons ution or the amendments to the cons ution.

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 cons ution. 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 Chas y"

Exhibit C:



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 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 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 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...



In context...

[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; 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.