Reply With Quote
someone needs to punch you in the face.
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."
someone needs to punch you in the face.
That's Doctor Part Changer to you!
All of you guys talking 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.
O'Donnell is the "grifter." Is that you're assessment?
Doctor Part Changer called O'Donnell a grifter?
In her defense?
She's cute. So, what?
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 Cons ution?
While at the same time she is the candidate from the party that claims to be champions of said cons ution?
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 cons utionalists!!
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 has this country turned into??
Idiocracy here we come.
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 ins ute 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.
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 nuts at this time. an initially good idea, with some basically appealing aspects, that has since been hijacked by the fringes and the corporate right.
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.
what other morons have been given a pass?
define moron in this context.
you mean the intelligent design theory is a religious concept?
God forbid.
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 has for brains, brain farts are completely natural.
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 sake! its not like the problem is with her oratory skills...
, 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 cons ution 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.
What does that have to do with anything, even if it was true? I'd never vote Kim Kardashian to public office.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
