Originally Posted By FaMulan <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39740538/ns/politics-decision_2010/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39...on_2010/</a> And she wants to be sworn into office to "Protect and Defend" a document she doesn't know the most basic things about? Glad I'm not a Delaware voter.
Originally Posted By Mr X She also said that denying the right for Creationists to teach their "version" in science class is "unconstitutional". And, she can't name a single Supreme Court case (sound familiar?). Are you just learning about this woman or something, Fa?
Originally Posted By fkurucz But she's a Mavericky, mama grizzly bear with a "git 'er done' attitude. How could she possibly be a bad choice? Since when is being ignorant a crime? Or incompetent?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Sometimes I question it too. The House of Representatives has a Chaplain and opens each legislative session with a prayer. The Senate has a Chaplain and does likewise.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>She's not going to win.<< If she gets > 0 votes, we've still got a potentially lethal epidemic of stupid on our hands. Holy mother of goodness gracious heavens!
Originally Posted By Mr X Yeah, but she's questioning the opposite way you are Wahoo. The whole "open with a prayer" thing rubs me the wrong way no matter WHERE it is (unless "it" happens to be in a church or mosque or whatever). It seems forwardly obnoxious in mixed company if you ask me, and PARTICULARLY in a place of governance where multi-religious (or non-religious) folks may be present at any time.
Originally Posted By FaMulan It just boggles my mind is all. Where I grew up, in order to graduate from 8th grade you had to pass a Constitution Test. Some of the knowledge I learned for studying and working toward that test has stuck with me.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Sometimes I question it too. The House of Representatives has a Chaplain and opens each legislative session with a prayer. The Senate has a Chaplain and does likewise.<< We've seen this rerun before. There is a difference between public religion, which the Founders were a-okay with, and state religion, which is really what folks like Miss O'Donnell support. Oh sure, they sound nice and harmless about it. "Gosh, why can't we have God in the public square? What are you afraid of?" But in their version of religion, it won't take long for minority groups to be marginalized. That Ground Zero mosque that's neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque? It would go from crazy people screaming about it to legally prohibited. Which is why, despite their own various religious traditions and beliefs, the Founders were very clear to defend the rights of minority religions and to erect the famous "wall of separation."
Originally Posted By Mr X That Ground Zero mosque that's neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque? It would go from crazy people screaming about it to legally prohibited 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
Originally Posted By ecdc Holy crap! I just read the link. It's much worse than the headline suggests. This isn't some philosophical disagreement about the role of religion in American public life. Christine O'Donnell doesn't know what the First Amendment says. Wow.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.*** Raised questions!!?? Who was the idiot that thought she had a "grasp" on the constitution before this? Like I wrote after the debate, she said that NOT being able to teach Creationism is "unconstitutional", IN the debate, but neither her opponent nor the moderators chose to question that remark. Which leads me to wonder who the REAL dummies are in this whole fiasco.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools." "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.<< (At this point, Coons must have been stifling a laugh.) >>When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"<< (In her mind, she envisioned that was a real zinger, the perfect "gotcha" for all that liberal claptrap. She flashed forward to hearing cheering crowds at her presidential inauguration, and that she, Christine, had successfully been the one to "take back the country" from the masturbating heathens...) >>Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.<< (That likely snapped her out of the gauzy flash-forward dream sequence and into the depressing reality of "I think I just lost this election.")
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 I think at this her opponent isn't pointing out every dumb thing she says because then he would never get to speak on real issues. Plus, he has to be careful not to look like he is picking on her or she will start to get sympathy votes (don't get me started on how stupid that is). "Who was the idiot that thought she had a "grasp" on the constitution before this?" I think the general assumption is that if someone is talking about wanting to protect the constitution, they actually know what the constitution says. In the past it was probably a pretty safe assumption to make. In this election though the Tea Party is going the extra mile to prove this is a bad assumption to make anymore.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Of course not DAR, but why is she even on the ballot in the first place? Why was she endorsed by Sarah Palin? And why are Republicans backing her?
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<but why is she even on the ballot in the first place? Why was she endorsed by Sarah Palin? And why are Republicans backing her?>> Because they don't know what the Constitution says either.
Originally Posted By ecdc Right. It's not just Christine O'Donnell, as if she's just some anomaly. This whole "nothing to see here, move along" attitude is pretty disturbing given what's happening in American politics. Yeah, she's an easy target because her statements are a little more bone-headed than most. But her beliefs are shared by elected officials like Jim DeMint and by people who will be elected officials shortly, thanks to the teabaggers (say hello to Mike Lee, the new Senator from Utah). It's not about Christine O'Donnell so who cares. It's about a movement in our country that prides itself on ignorance, is xenophobic, and wants to impose their narrowly-defined religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 The state to watch ! Remember the old saying " "As Maryland goes, So goes Delaware" Goodness knows ,what state falls next?Rhode Island ?
